JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Challenging the award and decree dated 24.07.2013 in M.V.O.P. No. 334 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short “the tribunal”) the second respondent, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Tirupati, Chittoor District, has preferred the appeal, vide M.A.C.M.A. No. 124 of 2014, questioning the liability fastened on it. On the other hand, the claimants have preferred the appeal, vide M.A.C.M.A. No. 566 of 2017, seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

3. The claimants had filed an application under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- on account of the death of C. Jyothi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.04.2008.

4. The claimant's case is that on 13.04.2008 at 10.45 a.m. the deceased Jyothi, a pillion rider and his friend, R. Hema Kumar as a rider of the two-wheeler bearing R. No. TN-20AF-9383, were proceeding from Uthukottai to Kalki Bhagavan Ashramam near Varadaiahpalem. When they reached near Tirupati-Mudaliar mango garden, Palagunta, on Sathyavedu-Varadaiahpalem main road, a lorry bearing R. No. ABW-4819, hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle” driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle, due to which the deceased Jyothi and R. Hema Kumar fell on the road, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 14 of 2008 for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was 27 years old, hale and healthy. It is further averred that the deceased did his B.B.A. degree course at Madras University and diploma course in C.S.C. computer education in office automation and diploma in Accounts Package in Sri Aadi Parasakthi Industrial School and worked as Assistant Manager at A.J. Associates, Chennai and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,500/- and was contributing the same to the welfare of the claimants. The claimants are the parents of the deceased.

5. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement denying the material averments, including the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased; the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent, and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. At the time of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle drove it rashly and negligently at high speed and dashed against the vehicle. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent manner on the part of the deceased's motorcycle. It is further contended that the insurance company did not insure the motorcycle, and there was no policy by the accident date. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation.

6. The second respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle, filed its counter on similar lines to the counter filed by the first respondent and further submitted that the offending vehicle was plied without any permit and registration in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate their claim, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12; on behalf of the respondents, RWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 and also marked Exs.X.1 and X.2 through the witnesses.

8. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal, while answering issue No. 1, held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver; while