JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2005 in M.V.O.P. No.168 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

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

3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) claiming compensation an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-for the death of Ohankali Vidya Sagar, who is the son of claimants. The said Ohankali Vidyasagar will hereinafter be referred to as “the deceased”.

4. The claimant's case is that on 28.08.2002 at about 06.00 AM, the deceased, his wife and his daughter were travelling in an Ambassador car bearing No.AP-09-J-6426 belonging to respondent No.3, which is insured with respondent No.4 to attend to the marriage of their relative. When the said car was passing on the extreme left side of the road at Ramarajupalli on NH-7 road, suddenly a lorry bearing No.KA-03-A-5200 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') belonging to respondent No.1, which is insured with respondent No.2, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car, as a result of which, the car has damaged fully. The deceased was crushed in the vehicle and died on the spot.

5. Respondents 1 and 3, who are the owners of the lorry and car, respectively, have remained ex parte.

6. The second respondent filed its written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver but not due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the lorry driver. Since the car driver died, a case had been registered against the lorry driver. The claimants were not dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. The fourth respondent filed its written statement submitting that the claimants did not issue any notice before filing the claim petition. The compensation claimed is excessive. The accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, but not rashness or negligence of the car driver.

8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.19. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1's lorry and awarded compensation Rs.4,55,000/-together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against the respondents No.1 and 2, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, dismissing the claim against respondents 3 and

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties.

11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the tribunal erred in ignoring the evidence of PW.3 on the assumption that the Managing Director of the company will not change the phone number frequently; the tribunal ought to have seen that the oral evidence of PW.3 to prove Exs.A5 and A6, which establishes the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.15,643/-per month; and the tribunal erred in taking the monthly income as Rs.10,000/-without any valid reason and documentary evidence; and the tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was well educated, and well-trained software engineer and his future growth chances of increase in the monthly income are enormous; the tribunal ought to have taken the judicial notice of the fact of the higher salaries that are being drawn by the software engineers in the present software boom; the tribunal erred in taking the age of the second claimant as 52 years, but as on the date of filing of the petition, her age was