JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.08.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.176 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge at Rajahmundry, M/s.Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, the 3rd respondent, preferred this appeal questioning award, the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

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

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of Saka Suresh Kumar @ Pandu, who died in a Motor vehicle accident. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Their relationship with the deceased is not in dispute.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 21.08.2010 the deceased was returning on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BK 2092 from Kadiyam and when he reached FCI go-down at about 10.30 PM, a motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BH 5389 hereinafter be referred as ‘offending motor cycle’ came in opposite direction from Dawaleswaram and dashed the motor cycle.

5. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the driver, second respondent is the owner and the third respondent is the insurer of the offending motor vehicle. The said case of the claimants is also not in dispute. The respondents 1 and 2 have remained ex-parte.

6. The third respondent filed its counter contending that the deceased was the rider of the motor cycle and he was unable to control the motor cycle and dashed the motor cycle driven by the first respondent. The accident arose on account of negligence of the deceased and the first respondent was not at all negligent.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A. 13 on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.X.1 on behalf of the respondents.

8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the first respondent, who is the rider of the offending motor cycle and not on account of the negligence of the deceased. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.9,17,092/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

9. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant /3rd respondent contends that at the time of accident the deceased was riding the bike along with two pillion riders with baggage and lost control and the same was established by Ex.X.1; the tribunal below ought to have fixed the contributory negligence; and the tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased’s mother, but not the deceased; and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; and the tribunal has failed to determine the salary of the deceased.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents/ claimants supported the Tribunal's findings and observations.

12. Now the points for consideration are,

I. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle’s driver or the deceased or due to contributory negligence of both the riders?

II. Whether the compensation fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable?

POINT No.I

a. The offending motor cycle is insured by the 3rd respondent, and the insurance policy in force at the time of the accident is not in dispute. The death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident is also not disputed. It is also evident by Ex.A.1- attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-attested copy of PME report, Ex.A.3-attested copy of inquest report and Ex.A.5-attested copy of charge sheet.

b. The first claimant was examined as P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased. He stated in his chief-affidavit about the manner of the accident. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not witness the accident. To establish the negl