JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.10.2014 in MVOP.No.418 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent APSRTC preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.418 of 2013.

3. As seen in the pleadings, the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides; the following facts are either admitted or undisputed. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased, i.e., Jonnakuti Koteswara Rao. The 1st respondent is the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28Z2705 (referred to as the offending vehicle), and the 2nd respondent is the Managing Director of APSRTC.

4. The claim made by the petitioners under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles At, 1988, for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest and costs. It is the case of the claimants that on 19.02.2013 at about 08.15 AM, the deceased was going to Priyadarsini Degree College to attend his 2nd-year degree class on a motorcycle bearing No.AP7BK2496, the 1st respondent, drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and gave a dash to the deceased's motorcycle, due to which the deceased fell on the left side tyres of the bus. The bus ran over the deceased, causing severe injuries; he succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to the hospital.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte, and the 2nd respondent filed a counter by contending that there was no negligence on the offending vehicle's driver.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. On behalf of the petitioners, examined PWs.1 and 2, marked Exs.A1 to A10; on behalf of the 2nd respondent, none were examined and marked no documents.

7. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., the 1st respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driver of the offending bus and Tribunal committed a severe irregularity in granting compensation amount and the Tribunal came to a conclusion regarding the income of the deceased without any basis. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal.

10. Now points for determination are whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1st respondent and whether the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

11. To prove the accident, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 is the 1st petitioner. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was not a direct witness to the accident. Though he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination, nothing elicited to discredit his evidence. PW.2 – J.Durga Prasad stated his evidence that he was present at the time of the accident and on 19.02.2013 at about 08.15 AM, or 08.20 AM, while the deceased was going towards Tenali from Kolluru village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP7BK2496, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP282705 drove the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed gave a dash to the deceased motorcycle, due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries.

12. The respondents have not disputed the deceased's death due to injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioners relied on an Ex.A1 copy of FIR in Cr. No.4 of 2013 of Kolluru police station and