JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. The appeal in MACMA No. 623/2019 is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 28.03.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 527/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of S. Anand, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The appeal in MACMA No. 334/2021 is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 28.03.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 527/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of S. Anand, in a motor vehicle accident.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

4. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of S. Anand, who is son of the 1st petitioner, husband of the 2nd petitioner and father of the petitioners No. 3 and 4 in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.02.2014.

5. The facts show that on 27.02.2014 night the deceased as TV operator-cum-Attendant in APSRTC Bus No. AP-29-Z-2925 along with second respondent and another driver left Kurnool for Chennai. The 2nd respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. On 28.02.2014 at about 06.00 a.m. when the bus was proceeding near signal at Senghalam temple bypass within the limits of E5 Sholavaram Police Station of Tamilnadu State, while taking turn at the diversion, the 2nd respondent lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the side wall of the bridge and the vehicle fell down, as a result of which, the deceased crushed inside the bus and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 36 years and working as T.V. operator-cum-attendant in the bus on contract basis under contractor in APSRTC and getting Rs. 5,400/- per month. Due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner.

6. Before, the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/APSRTC filed counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, contended that there was no negligence on the part of 2nd respondent, and the accident was occurred, as the deceased was sleeping on back seat of driver, who fell down on road while the bus was taking turn and died. The 2nd respondent adopted the counter filed by the 1st respondent.

7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent.

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against the respondents 1 and 2.

10. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC in MACMA No. 623/2019 is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was