JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/APSRTC represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad, and Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, challenging the award dated 17.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Prl. District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the respondents/claimants for death of their son Dugganaboyina @ Duggina Ravi in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of their son Dugganaboyina @ Duggina Ravi in a motor vehicle accident occurred on the intervening night of 06/07-09-2009.

4. The facts show that the deceased Dugganaboyina @ Duggina Ravi was aged about 20 years and was studying third year B.Tech course in Sri Vidyaniketan Engineering College, Rangampet, Chittore District. On the intervening night of 06/07-09-2009, the deceased and his brother boarded APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 at Pamuru Village to go to Nellore to go to college. When the said bus crossed Butchireddipalem Village and reached near Harsha College at about 00.50 hours, the 3rd respondent, who was driving the said bus, drove it in a rash and negligent way and dashed a stationed lorry from behind, as a result the back portion of the lorry and the left front portion of the bus were damaged and the deceased Ravi and another person, who were travelling in the said bus died on spot while some other passengers sustained injuries. The deceased was quite intelligent and a hard worker and he got 535 marks out of 600 in 10th class and secured 921 marks in intermediate. In B.Tech course also he secured good marks and would have certainly secured a good job and earned Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month, if he were alive. The petitioners were rearing she-buffalos and selling milk to meet the educational expenses of deceased. On account of death of the deceased, they lost their beloved son and they are suffering from mental agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/APSRTC, filed a written statement while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 observed a stationed lorry without any signal lights and turned towards right side, but in the meanwhile, he observed that a car was coming in opposite direction, and to avoid hitting the said car, he had again turned the bus towards left side, and at that juncture, the left side front portion of the bus hit the lorry on its rear end, and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in driving the said bus. The claim of the petitioners is excessive. The 3rd respondent adopted the written statement filed by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent remained exparte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident dated 07.09.2009 which resulted in the death of the deceased Dugganaboina Ravi occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 by the 3rd respondent as alleged in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17. On behalf of the 1st respondent/APSRTC, R.W-1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

8.