JUDGMENT :

V. Srinivas, J.

These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.191 of 2011 dated 06.04.2017.

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.712 of 2018 is filed by the insurer of Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are parents and respondent No.3 herein is elder brother of the deceased by name C. Naveen Reddy. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are the insured and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein are the legal heirs of the 6th respondent, who is owner of the said car. Respondent No.8 herein is the driver of the said lorry.

4. M.A.C.M.A.No.2266 of 2017 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

5. M.A.C.M.A.No.3230 of 2017 is filed by the insurer of lorry bearing No. AP 04 T 0948.

6. According to the claimants, on 13.02.2011 at about 03.30 p.m. near Naravari Rahadari turning on a road running from Chittoor to Kurnool, N.H.18 in between Piler and Kallur of Pulicherla Mandal, when the deceased along with his friends was proceeding in Verna Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948 came in opposite direction with sugarcane load at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said car. As a result of which, spark ignited in the engine of car, which caught hold fire on the spot and the inmates of the car also died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years and was working as Assistant Systems Engineer in Tata Consultancy Services, Chennai and earning Rs.5,00,515/- p.a. Being dependents, the claimants filed M.V.O.P under the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-.

7. Counter was filed by the owner of the lorry denying all the material allegations, stating that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry and the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of car only and hence, he is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Counter was filed by the insurer of lorry denying all the material allegations, stating that the policy issued to the lorry was in force at the time of accident; that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation.

9. Counter was filed by one of the legal heirs of owner of the car, which was adopted by the other legal heirs, stating that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry; that the driver of car was having valid driving license and the policy issued to the car was in force at the time of accident and hence, insurer of the car is liable to pay compensation.

10. Counter was filed by the insurer of car stating that the driver of car was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the amount claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

11. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent Verna Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337 resulting into the death of the deceased Cherlo Naveen Reddy ?

2. whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate and from whom? and

3. To what relief ?

12. In the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 and X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

13. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the composite negligence of drivers o