JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2007 in M.V.O.P. No.457 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole(for short "the tribunal"), the claimants preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

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

3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.3,92,000/-on account of the death of Sesham Rosaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.03.2004.

4. The claimant's case is that on 06.03.2004, the deceased and some others boarded the goods Auto bearing No. A.P. 27 V 2629, and when the Auto came near Aravapallipadu at about 04.30 AM, the Auto bearing No.AP07 X 5370, which came in the opposite direction, dashed against the Auto where the deceased travelled. As a result, the deceased and another died in the accident.

5. The 1st respondent, the owner of Auto bearing No.AP07 X 5370 filed a written statement, denied the earnings of the deceased and pleaded that his driver was not at all negligent and he was driving the Auto slowly, and the other Auto driver was driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident.

6. The 2nd respondent, the insurer of the 1st respondent’s Auto, filed a written statement denying the age, income, avocation and health condition and contended that the Auto bearing No.AP07 X 5370 was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. It also denied the liability to pay compensation and pleaded that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2-insurance company.

7. The 3rd respondent, the owner of Auto bearing No.AP27 V 2629 filed a written statement contending that the deceased was not earning Rs.100/-per day by selling fruits and eatables and pleaded that the deceased was an idle man and his driver was not at all at fault and that the accident occurred due to negligence of another driver.

8. The 4th respondent, the insurer of the 3rd respondent’s Auto, filed a written statement and an additional written statement, 3rd contending that the Auto of the respondent was a goods vehicle. The deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle. So, there is no contract of insurance between the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent to cover the risk of passengers in a goods vehicle, and the compensation claimed is excessive.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of 4th the respondent, RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B.1.

10. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to a head-on collision of both the Autos of respondents 1 and 3; and awarded compensation Rs.2,77,000/-together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and dismissed the claim against 4th respondent; respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.1,38,500/-and 3rd respondent is required to deposit the remaining compensation of Rs.1,38,500/-within 30 days.

11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties.

12. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the Tribunal should have seen that accident occurred between two vehicles head-on collision and Award should have been given against the 4th respondent also as both drivers of the vehicles are responsible for the accident; the appellants further contended that the income of the deceased would not be less than Rs.3,000/-per month.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observatio