JUDGMENT :

(V. Srinivas, J.)

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.O.P.No.894 of 2001 dated 03.09.2003.

2. These appeals arise out of same accident and are being decided by this common judgment since the material facts are common.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.806 of 2009 is preferred by the insurer of the Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 belonging to the 4th respondent herein.

4. C.M.A.(SR).No.15236 of 2004 is preferred with delay of 60 days (I.A.No.1 of 2004) by the claimants i.e., wife and daughter of the deceased, for enhancement of compensation.

5. The averments made in the claim petition before the Tribunal are as follows:

i). The claimants are wife and daughter of the deceased by name G.Venkateswara Rao and respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein are the parents of the deceased.

ii). According to the claimants, on 17.10.2000 at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 R 4690, the driver of one Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. He was shifted to K.G.H.Hopsital, Visakhapatnam, where he was declared as dead. A case was registered in Crime No.374 of 2000 under Section 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the water tanker.

iii). By the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Transmission Executive in All India Radio Station, Visakhapatnam and earning Rs.11,400/- p.m. He is the sole bread winner of the family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners became helpless and there is no other source of livelihood and the 1st petitioner became gloomy. The deceased was well educated and there is bright prospects in his future and there are several chances of his promotion to reach highest position. As the parents of the deceased, who are residing at Machilipatnam, are not cooperating, they are impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the claim petition. Hence, the wife and daughter of the deceased filed said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- initially. Thereafter, I.A.No.580 of 2002 was filed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.30,00,000/- and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2002.

6. The driver, who is the 1st respondent therein with adoption memo of the owner/2nd respondent therein filed counter denying all the material allegations. Further stating that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of water tanker. The deceased negligently entered on the road, which was in upper in gradient from the cross lane and tried to overtake the vehicle without giving any caution. It was further contended that the vehicle was insured with the insurer, the insurance policy was subsisting at the time of accident and that the 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the owner and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is too exorbitant and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. The insurance company, who is the 3rd respondent therein filed counter denying all the material averments, stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the water tanker. It also denied the age and earnings of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is too exorbitant. The claimants have to prove that the driver of the water tanker was having valid and subsisting driving license by the date of accident and that the rate of interest claimed is also too high and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. The parents of the deceased, who are respondents 4 and 5 therein filed counter admitting the relationship between them and the c