JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2009 in M.V.O.P. No.440 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A. No.1822 of 2014, whereas the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, has filed M.A.C.M.A. No.566 of 2022. As both appeals arise out of the orders passed in M.V.O.P. No.440 of 2005, 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 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- for the death of Kalluru Venkata Reddy alias Venkateswara Reddy, who died in the accident. The said Kalluru Venkata Reddy alias Venkateswara Reddy will hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased’.

4. The claimant's case is that on 12.02.2005 at about 7.30 PM, the deceased and one Penchalaiah were proceeding from Kanisiripalem by walk towards Buchireddipalem village, when they reached near Achari saw mill on Bombay road, Buchireddipalem, the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP10 Z 4356 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending bus') being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing the horn, came from Atmakur side and hit the deceased from his behind. As a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot.

5. It is not in dispute that the first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are minor children, claimants 4 and 5 are sisters, and 6th claimant is the father of the deceased and is dependent on him.

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

7. The respondent filed its counter, submitting that the on the date and time of the accident, the offending bus came from Anasuya Nagar to go to Nellore and near Buchireddipalem, they saw a group of people on the left side of the road. The offending bus stayed at Buchireddipalem for about 10 minutes. Nobody was informed about the accident; the bus's passengers stated that the bus was not involved in any accident at that time. The news was published in the newspaper dated 12.02.2005 to the effect that the deceased died in a road accident caused by an unidentified vehicle. It shows that the offending bus was not involved in the accident. The dependency of the claimants and the income of the deceased are disputed. The claim is excessive and untenable.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 got examined, and no documents were marked.

9. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver, which resulted in the death of the deceased, awarded compensation of Rs.3,83,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

10. Heard both the learned counsel.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.1822 of 2014 contended that the Tribunal granted less compensation without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.2,700/- per month; it ought to have considered that the deceased was doing husk business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; the Tribunal erred in compensating only Rs.53,500/- to the father of the deceased (father in law of the 1st appellant). The Tribunal erred in not considering the Ex.A4-M.V.I report; the Tribunal erred in not considering the love and affection, and mental