ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 28.6.2006 passed in OP No. 266 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ongole.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of the deceased for compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 18.1.2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The deceased alongwith her husband and other family members proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 9S 5599 to Hyderabad, and reached near Sambasivaraopeta, a lorry bearing No. AAG 993 came in opposite direction and dashed against the car. The deceased received injuries in the accident and died on the spot. The husband of the deceased committed suicide later. A case in Crime No. 17 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the lorry. The deceased was doing saree business and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by the date of the accident. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the grandparents of the petitioners 3 to 5 and they filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

3. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending lorry had remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent had filed written statement alleging that at the time of accident, the offending lorry was insured with it. The deceased was a housewife. There is no documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased at the time of accident to show that the deceased was doing saree business and that she was an employee in Andhra Cement Company. Therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of lorry and car and awarded compensation.

5. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- as there was no proof of income. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenditure out of the annual income of Rs. 18,000/- and the contribution to the family would be Rs. 12,000/-. As per Exs. A2 and A3, the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and hence, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 15'. The Tribunal under all heads granted compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/-. Since the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the car, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to only half of the amount i.e., Rs. 92,250/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal without there being any corroborative evidence erred in coming to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles. He submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased and granted lesser compensation. He, therefore, sought for enhancement of compensation as claimed.

8. As regards the aspect of contributory negligence is concerned, the material evidence available on record reveals that the husband of the deceased is the driver of the Maruti Zen Car and the lorry was driven by its driver. That the manner in which the accident took place shows that both the drivers of the vehicles went wrong and both are responsible for the accident. The lorry driver could have averted the accident by sticking to the left side of the road and the car driver also could have stopped the car when the lorry was coming towards right side of the road or he could have taken the car to the extreme left of the road to avoid the accident. In that view of the matter the findings of the Tribunal do no