JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 07.02.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.153/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Syed Bavaji, in a motor vehicle accident.

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

3. 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.4,00,000/-on account of the death of Syed Bavaji, who is son of the petitioners in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.04.2008.

4. The facts show that the petitioners are the parents of deceased Syed Bavaji. On 19.04.2008 at about 06.30 a.m., the deceased Syed Bavaji, who was driver of Tempo bearing No.AP 03X 2522 was returning to Srikalahasthi after unloading the cows at Satyavedu and when the vehicle reached near Tangellapalem on the extreme left side of the road, one lorry bearing No.AP7T 1510 was coming opposite, and the driver drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the tempo, as a result of which, the deceased Syed Bavaji and two others sustained fatal injuries and one K.A.Gurubalan also died on the spot. Bavaji and other injured were shifted to Government Hospital through ambulance and on the way to hospital, Syed Bavaji died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Syed Bavaji was only the son to the petitioners and they were very affectionate towards him and death of their beloved son caused them frustration and depression. The deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/-per month and also used to get Rs.100/-per day as batta. The petitioners spent huge amount for funeral and incidental expenses. The Station House Officer, B.N.Kandrika P.S. registered Cr.No.39/2008 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the lorry. The driver of the said lorry has valid and effective driving license to drive the crime lorry. The 1st respondent insured the said lorry with the 2nd respondent and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident.

5. Before, the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying the material averments of the petition, and contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and arbitrary. The liability of 2nd respondent is subject to existence of policy terms and conditions. The accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Tempo bearing No.AP 03X 2522 in a rash and negligent manner without observing the road traffic rules and that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. The 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Tirupathi, filed written statement 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 the 1st respondent has not followed the rules and regulations as laid down in section 3 of M.V.Act, 1988 and no owner or person incharge of motor vehicle shall cause permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of M.V.Act to drive the vehicle, that the Police Officer, who investigated the offence failed to follow the rule laid down in section 158(6) of M.V.Act 1988, that a Police Officer shall forward a copy of any information regarding the accident to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and to the concerned insurer, that the person who drove the vehicle of the 3rd respondent was not having any