JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 27.01.2015 in M.V.O.P. No.249 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short, "the tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- with interest 9% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2 and dismissing the claim against the respondents 3 and 4, the 2nd respondent, Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claim is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Jillelamudi Venkatswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a road accident that occurred on 15.11.2012.

4. The 1st petitioner is the wife; the 2nd is the son, and petitioners 3 and 4 are the deceased's parents. The claimant's case is that on 15.11.2012 at about 03.20PM, the deceased and one Unnam Rosaiah came to Addanki on a motorcycle bearing No.AP27AE3790 from their village Peda Ullagallu and while they returned to their village at about 03.00 PM and when they reached to brick kiln of Thokala Venkateswarlu at approximately 03.20 PM on Addanki-Dasari road, one A.P.S.R.T.C. Hire Bus bearing No.AP27W8109 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') came in opposite direction rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle, as a result, the rider of bike Unnam Rosaiah died on the spot and the pillion rider i.e., the deceased herein received multiple injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Addanki and from there to Sanghamitra Hospital, Ongole for better treatment, where deceased succumbed to injuries on 18.11.2012 at about 01.00 PM.

5. The 4th respondent remained exparte.

6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed their counters separately.

7. Respondents 1 to 3 denied the accident, age, income, or avocation of the deceased; there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver, but there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle in which the deceased was a pillion rider. So the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. The 3rd respondent submitted that the owner of the bus entered into an agreement with A.P.S.R.T.C., and as per Clause-IV of it, the owner shall be responsible for all the claims that may arise due to statutory violation.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim on behalf of the claimant during the trial, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 got examined and attested Xerox copy of agreement dt.10.07.2012 executed between the owner of the bus and the A.P.S.R.T.C. marked as Ex.B.1.

9. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver; the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization against respondents 1 and 2, and the claim was dismissed against respondents 3 and 4.

Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal.

10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

11. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no proper evidence about the income and occupation of the deceased; Tribunal failed to see that the claimant has not filed authenticated documents like original passbook etc., The Tribunal failed to see that supervisory capacities have to be ascertained without loss of future prospectus; the Tribunal failed to see that amount granted under non-pecuniary he