JUDGMENT :

V.Srinivas, J.

These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.426 of 2007 dated 30.03.2009.

2. These appeals arising out of same accident and raising common questions of law have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts concerned to these cases remain in short compass.

4. In M.A.C.M.A.No.3451 of 2009 the insurer of the Bus bearing No.KA 17B 7374, belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, is the appellant. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are parents and respondent No.3 is younger brother of Ramesh Babu (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). Respondent No.4 and 5 herein are the insured and insurer of Tayota Quallis Vehicle bearing No.KA 04 AA 5400.

5. In M.A.C.M.A.No.3294 of 2009 the claimants are the appellants for enhancement of compensation.

6. According to the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal, on 20.10.2006 at about 06.30 A.M., when the deceased and some others were proceeding in the Tayota Quallis Vehicle bearing No. KA 04 AA 5400 from Bangalore to Goa, on the way, near Davangare, the bus bearing No. KA 17B 7374, being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction towards wrong side and hit the said Tayota Quallis Vehicle. As a result, the deceased and three others died on the spot. By the time of accident the deceased was aged about 24 years and earning Rs.4,92,000/- per annum by working as Software Engineer in Onmobile Asia Pacific Private Limited, Bagalore. Being dependents, the claimants filed petition under M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- against insurer and insured of both the vehicles.

7. Written statement was filed by the owner of the bus, denying all the material allegations, stating that the bus was validly insured; and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Quallis vehicle and hence, he is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Written statement was filed by the insurer of the bus, denying all the material allegations, stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Quallis vehicle; and that the claimants have to prove that the owner of the bus has not violated the terms of the policy.

9. Written Statement was filed by the owner of the Tayota Quallis vehicle, denying the material allegations, stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by violating the traffic rules towards wrong side and hit the Quallis vehicle and hence, he is not liable to pay compensation.

10. Written statement was filed by the insurer of the Qualliz vehicle, denying all the material allegations, stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus; and that police registered crime against the driver of the bus and filed charge sheet.

11. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

1. Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No.KA 17B 7374 and Qualis No.KA 04 AA 5400 by their drivers ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to and against whom?

3. To what relief?

12. In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and X.1 to X.3 were marked. On behalf of the insurer of the bus, R.W.1 was examined, Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. One J. Rahamtulla, R.T.A. official was examined as R.W.2. On behalf of the insurer of the Quallis vehicle, R.W.3 was examined, Ex.B.6 was marked.

13. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, held that parents of the deceased are entitled for the compensation of Rs.38,80,000/-, with interest at 7% per annum f