JUDGMENT :

1. This MACMA preferred by claimants in MVOP.No.532 of 2010 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, being aggrieved by order and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dt.31.05.2013 passed in the said MVOP by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum., to them for the death of Shaik Aseek alias S.Asif Ahmad (hereinafter be referred as deceased) due to injuries sustained in the accident.

2. It also noted that the insurance company filed cross-objections in this appeal by which the insurance company has contended that the Tribunal, without any basis, concluded that the income of the deceased is Rs.25,000/- per month. The Tribunal failed to see that there is no disturbance in the income of the deceased's family concerning the vehicle business. The claimants have claimed Rs.10,00,000/- and Tribunal awarded the same, which is adequate.

3. The parties referred to as per their original rankings before Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the court's convenience.

4. The 1st claimant is the wife, and claimants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the deceased. They filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the MV Act and read with rule 455 of AP MV Rules, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The factual matrix of the claimant's case is that on 13.08.2010, the deceased came from Pezzonipet to his house at Yanamalakuduru Village. They reached Pardhasaradhi Road, Kannur, at about 11.25 hours. The sand tipper lorry is bearing No.AP-07-W-9936 (hereinafter referred to as an offending vehicle), coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of the deceased on the left side, and he sustained multiple injuries. He shifted to TIMES Hospital, Vijayawada, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 18.08.2010 at about 04.25AM.

6. The 1strespondent remained set exparte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-denying the allegations made in the petition and the nature of the deceased's income. There is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The petitioner's claim is excessive and exorbitant.

7. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal framed relevant issues; before the Tribunal on behalf of petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A23. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 got examined and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

8. After considering evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners.

9. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for both sides.

10. The main contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal, having held that the claimants are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.34,83,717/-, ought not to have restricted their claim to Rs.10,00,000/- and Tribunal erred in not granting compensation of Rs.34,83,717/-.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal. However, contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding the deceased's earnings, as pointed out in cross-objections.

12. Now the point for determination is whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with principles of law and requires enhancement.

13. After careful reading the material on record, this court views that there is no serious dispute as to the occurrence of the accident in question and the respondent's liability to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent also did not dispute the correctness of finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. So it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the case in detail. The main dispute between parties i