ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 13.2.2006 passed in MVOP No. 844 of 2001 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (IX Additional District Judge), Guntur (for short "the Tribunal").

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner No. 1 is the mother, petitioner No. 2 is the father and petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are younger sisters of the deceased-Sunil Kumar. On 20.5.2001 at about 8.30 p.m., while the deceased was going on the cycle as a pillion rider from Thummalapalem Village to reach Pepsi Company on left side of NH5 road and when they reached near LRR Poultry farm quarters, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 7T 990 belongs to respondent No. 1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, dashed against the deceased from his behind, as a result, the deceased fell down from the cycle and the lorry ran over him, and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to injuries. A case in Crime No. 34/2001 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur, was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years, hale and healthy and working as filling operator in Pepsi Company, Boayapalem, Guntur District on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,600/- and contributing some amount to the appellants/petitioners. Since the appellants/petitioners lost dependency and love and affection due to the death of the deceased, they claimed petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- against the respondents jointly and severally to pay the compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying their liability, alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. They disputed the age and earning capacity of the deceased, and the appellants are put to strict proof of the same. At the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, valid permit and valid registration certificate for the offending vehicle, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants/petitioners.

5. Based on the above averments, the Tribunal framed issues and on behalf of appellants/petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs. A1 to A6 were marked, and on behalf of respondents, none were examined and documents Exs. X1 to X3 were marked.

6. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,74,600/- to the petitioners, payable by respondents jointly and severally with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of presentation of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. Challenging the same, the petitioners/appellants preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

8. Inspite of several opportunities and even after posting the matter under the caption 'for dismissal' there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

9. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the subject accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1-driver of the offending lorry. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed.

10. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW 3 coupled with Ex. A6, Exs. X1 to X3 assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 2524/- p.m. and Rs. 30,300/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The contribution of the deceased to his family was assessed at Rs. 20,200/- p.a. Considering the age of PW 1 as per deposition (mother of the deceased) the Tribunal applie