1. The appellants/respondents aggrieved by the award and decree dated:11.06.2010 passed in O.P. No.994 of 2008 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, awarding compensation of Rs.7,31,000/- to the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and further ordered to adjust Rs.2,85,360/- paid by the appellants under Workmen’s Compensation Act and shall pay Rs.4,45,640/- and directed the appellants/respondents 1 and 2 to repay the amount within thirty days from the date of the order and further ordered the amount apportioned among the petitioner No.1 as Rs.3,00,000/- and petitioner No.4 as Rs.1,45,640/- respectively, the petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate costs soon after the deposit is made and the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period of three years, preferred this Appeal.

2. The contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and further as the claimants have moved before the Workmen’s Compensation authorities and received the amount and therefore, the claim is barred. It is further contended that the Trial Court did not consider Ex.B1 and the evidence of RW.1 prospectively.

3. The claim of the petitioners/claimants in brief is that, on 28.9.2008 at 6.15am., while the deceased was returning from garage fit side by walk, meanwhile, Ch. Lingeshwar Rao drove the bus bearing No.AP-28/Z-2231 in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result, he fell down, sustained head injury and died on the spot.

The deceased-Kamle Babru was 53 years old, working as driver in ARSRTC, Nizamabad Depot-I and was earning Rs.11,705/- per month. Due to his death, petitioner No.1 lost her affectionate husband and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 lost their affectionate father.

4. The contention of the appellants, by way of written statement is that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP-28/Z-2231. As a matter of fact, the deceased was not 53 years and was not earning Rs.11,705/- per month as driver. The amount claimed is excessive and without any basis.

5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1). Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28/Z-2231 by its driver?

(2). Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what just amount and against whom?

(3). To what relief?

6. In support of their claim, PWs.1 and 2 were examined as witnesses and Exs.1 to 6 were marked and on behalf of respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B.16 were marked.

7. Now, the point that arises for determination is: Whether the award and decree suffer from legal infirmities warranting interference in the Appeal?

8. The main contention of the appellants/respondents is that the petitioners/claimants have already received the compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable. Though in the written statement, it is contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, in the appeal, they have not taken such plea. The wife of the deceased- K. Babru who is petitioner No.1 filed evidence affidavit. The averments, complaint and also FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A2 read with evidence of PW.1 established that the deceased was entrusted with duty and the same was informed to the conductor and while he was returning, the accident occurred. PW.2 is the eye witness to the accident whose clear evidence is that on 28.9.2008 at 6.15 a.m., the deceased was entrusted with duty and he intimated to his conductor while return from garage fit side by walk. The driver of the RTC bus drove in rash and neg