JUDGMENT:

The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, at Kadapa.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The Claimant has filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of MV Act, for claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.2006 at 11:00 P.M.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 09.05.2006 at about 10:30 PM., the deceased Thummaluru Sankara Reddy and one Naga Subba Reddy were going on a Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No. AP 26 A 8997 from their village to go to Mydukur, and, the Naga Subba Reddy was pillion rider of the said motor cycle and the deceased and Naga Subba Reddy were going ahead of the motor cycle No. AP 21 H 3298 and at about 11:00 P.M., when they reached near Kundu river bridge, then the 1st respondent lorry driver bearing No. AP 21 W 1247 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and dashed against the motor cycle bearing No. AP 26 A 8997 in which the deceased was a pillion rider and as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and died at this spot itself.

5. The claimants further pleaded that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247 the accident taken place.

6. The 1st respondent filed a written statement and pleaded that at the time of accident he is driving the vehicle in a slow manner but admitted the involvement vehicle in a road accident.

7. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the allegations in the petition and contending that the accident had occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 26 A 8997, and the owner and insurer of the said motor cycle are the proper and necessary parties to the petition.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the deceased died in a motor accident that occurred on 09.05.2006 at 11:00 PM., due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. AP 21 W 1247 by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.

9. Now, the point for consideration are :

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247.

(2) Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable?

POINT NO. I:

(1) PW1 is the 1st petitioner, according to the 1st petitioner he is not an eye witness to the accident and P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident and his evidence goes to show because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247, the accident is took place.

10. The petitioners relied on Ex.A1 to A5, Ex.A1 is certified copy of the F.I.R, and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the charge sheet, and Ex.A5 is certified copy of the MVI report, Ex.A1 coupled with Ex.A4 and with evidence of P.W.2 clearly goes to show that the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247, it is not disputed by the respondent Insurance Company about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247 and because of his rash driving the accident is occurred Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

POINT NO. II

(1) The Petitioners claimant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,82,000/-, aggrieved against the said order the claimants filed the present appeal for enhancement of the claim, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company has not filed in appeal against the quantum granted by the Tribunal.

11. The 1st petitioner and the