JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.309 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, the claimants in the M.V.O.P. No.309 of 2007 filed M.A.C.M.A. No.546 of 2012. In contrast, the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupati, has filed M.A.C.M.A. No.851 of 2012. As both appeals arise out of the orders passed in M.V.O.P. No.309 of 2007, both appeals are disposed of by common Judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. as claimants and respondents.

3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of K. Revathi, daughter of petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.01.2007. The said K. Revathi would hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased’.

4. The claimant's case is on 06.01.2007 at about 8.00 AM, while Revathi and some others proceeded on a Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP03-T-7802 and 7803 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') as coolies, and when they reached Krisna eddy Poultry Farm, Mangalam village, the offending vehicle's Driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, crossed the road, lost control over the same. As a result, the offending vehicle turned turtle, where the deceased sustained grievous head injury and other coolies sustained injuries, and immediately all of them were shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati, where the deceased died on the same day in the hospital.

5. The relationship between the claimants with the deceased, as referred to in the claim petition, is not disputed by the respondents.

6. The 1st respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.

7. The 2nd respondent filed its counter, denying the averments in the petition and submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's Driver, the kith and kin of the deceased being local gained over the police and filed a case against the 1st respondent's Driver without conducting a proper investigation and that the 1st respondent's Driver does not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. The policy issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent vehicle as a miscellaneous and special type of vehicle and liability policy only for one year commencing from 07.09.2006 to 06.09.2007, and the 1st respondent did not pay any premium to cover the risk of inmates of the offending vehicle. They paid a premium to cover the risk of the offending vehicle's Driver only. The amount claimed is excessive and exaggerated without any documents.

8. During the pendency of O.P., respondents 3 and 4 added as L.R.s of the 1st respondent and requested the Court to pass a decree against the estate of the deceased 1st respondent in the hands of respondents 3 and 4.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.X.1 to X.4 and Ex.B1 policy.

10. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the Driver's rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which resulted in the death of the deceased and others sustained injuries, awarded compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization in favour of 2nd claimant, against 2nd respondent and estate of 1st respondent in the hands of respondents 3 and 4.

11. Heard both the learned counsels.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A. No.546 of 2012 contended that the Tribunal granted meagre compensation towards the deceased's death; the T