JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2010 in M.V.O.P. No.419 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Gooty (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) claiming compensation an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-on account of the death of Banala Varadhi Harinath Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who is the son of claimants.

4. The claimant's case is that on 01.10.2007, the deceased and one Kupperla Venugopal Reddy, pillion rider and rider respectively, of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-NT/R-7825, coming from Kasepalli village to Gooty on their work. At about 5.00 PM, when they reached Rajiv Gandhi Circle at Gooty on NH-7 road, at that time on A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-427 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending bus') was going ahead, and the said motorcycle rider was also going by the side of the bus. At that time, one auto came from the opposite side, and the rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied breaks, due to which the deceased fell from the motorcycle and came under the rear wheels of the offending bus, then the offending bus wheels ran over him, due to which he sustained grievous and simple injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Gooty, and he died in the hospital while undergoing treatment on the same day. A case was also registered in Cr. No.142/2007 under section 304(A) of I.P.C. of Gooty Police against the rider of the motorcycle.

5. The 1st respondent, the owner of the motorcycle, remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed its written statement, denied the claimant's case and also the age, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under policy Ex.B1. The rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The claim is excessive.

7. The 3rd respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. filed a written statement, denied the case of the claimants and also the age, income and occupation of the deceased and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle and not due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver. The claim is excessive.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 and Exs.X1 and X.2.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s motorcycle rider and awarded compensation Rs.2,05,000/-together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against the respondent No.1 and dismissed the claim against respondents 2 and 3.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties.

11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal ignoring the evidence of claimants and Ex.A.5, awarded the liability against the 1st respondent only and dismissed against respondents 2 and 3, is against the law; the Tribunal, without seeing the appellants age and taken the deceased income very low and awarded unreasonable compensation is erroneous even though the policy is in force, dismissed against the 2nd respondent is illegal and against the law; the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

13. Now the point for determination is:

I. Whether the