JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.10.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, (for short “the tribunal”), the respondents 4 and 5 therein have preferred the present appeal, questioning the award passed by the tribunal, for not granting compensation to them.

2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of Shiva Shankar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.07.2008. The claimant is the wife and respondents 4 and 5 are the parents, of the deceased.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 24.07.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased secured a TVS victor motorcycle bearing No.AP 5 AF 6618 from his friend to go to Digamarru village, Palakollu Mandal, to visit his elder sister’s house, deceased, his mother, and his niece, proceeded towards Digamarru village on a motorcycle; when they reached nearby Shivanjaneya nursery, Pottilanka village, a Ford Icon Car bearing No.AP 37 AK 7755, (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing the horn, came in the opposite direction from Ravulapalem to Vemagiri in the wrong route and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased, his mother and a minor girl were travelling. As a result of the accident, all three on the motorcycle fell on the road. The rider of the motorcycle, the deceased herein, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

5. Respondents 1 to 3, the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, have filed their respective written statements. Respondents 4 and 5, parents of the deceased, have filed a written statement.

6. Respondents 1 to 3, in their respective written statements, contended that the deceased failed to follow the motor vehicle rules and allowed the triple ride on a two-wheeler. As such, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation.

7. Respondents 4 and 5 in the written statement contended that the allegation made in the claim petition that they expressed their wish that they do not want money to allot their share is denied. The deceased is only their son, and they depend on the earnings of the deceased, and the 4th respondent is unable to earn money by rickshaw pulling. The 5th respondent is unable to move from the bed. The 4th respondent is old aged and unable to pull a rickshaw for their livelihood. The claimant went to her parents' house by leaving them, she filed the claim with false allegations.

8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 got examined, marked Exs.A.1 to A.5; on behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver; awarded compensation Rs.3,15,600/- against respondents 2 and 3 with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till realization. However, as seen from the order, the tribunal has not awarded compensation to the parents of the deceased by giving certain reasons. Respondents 4 and 5 have preferred the present appeal with a request to award compensation in their favour.

9. Heard both the learned counsel.

10. During the hearing, learned counsel for the appellants (respondents 4 and 5 in the M.V.O.P.) contended that the appellants were residing along with the deceased. They were solely dependent on the deceased and Respondent No.1. Due to his old age, is unable to work. The tribunal failed to see that the deceased was the only son of th