JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.151 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. For convenience 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’) r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V Rules claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.8,10,000/-for the death of M. Thirupathi Naidu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.10.2004. The said M.Thirupathi Naidu will hereinafter be referred to as “the deceased”.

4. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of 2nd claimant and the son of 3rd claimant.

5. The claimants’ case is that on 22.10.2004 the deceased along with claimants 1 and 2 and his brother’s son by the name Radhaiah were all going in a motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-G-8620 to go to his house at Maddannagaripalli to attend for Dasara festival. The deceased was riding the motorcycle and was proceeding on the road leading from Tadpatri so, the TATA Sumo vehicle is bearing (hereinafter be referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) – Kadapa. While No.AP-09-P-5265 belongs to Police Department, Kurnool District, was driven by 1st respondent coming from Kadapa’s side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased and pillion riders fell on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries; they were shifted to Government hospital, Tadpatri and from there to Appollo hospital, Anantapur. The deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

6. The 1st respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, filed written statement, contending that the accident occurred due to careless driving of a motorcycle by the deceased. 1st respondent is in no way responsible for the accident. In any event, respondents 2 to 4 are only liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

7. The 3rd respondent filed written statement, adopted by respondents 2 and 4, contending that the claimants are put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, age and earnings of the deceased. The offending vehicle is allotted to Kurnool District. The offending vehicle’s driver is not at all responsible for the accident. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. Hence, 3rd respondent is not a proper and necessary party to the petition.

8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver i.e., 1st respondent and awarded compensation Rs.3,18,000/-at 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 towards, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Claim against 3rd respondent is dismissed.

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

11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the tribunal ought to have award the total claim based on the deceased’s income. The Tribunal ought to have seen that, as per Ex.A10, the deceased was running a lorry on lease basis; the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the claimants suffered mental agony due to the un-exceptive death of deceased.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

13. Now the point f