JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri N. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, present respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. M.A.C.M.A. No. 945 of 2013 is by the National Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Seshapiran Street, Chittoor. Challenging the judgment/award dated 08.01.2013 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 231 of 2009 filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 which was partly allowed by the I Additional District-Cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor (in short, the Tribunal).

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that V. Jayachandra Naidu, along with his friend Sathyanarayana was proceeding in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. AP03 K 4752 from Chittoor to Palamaner on 01.08.2009. He was driving the car and when it reached near Buthala Banda cross, a Gas Tanker lorry bearing Registration No. A.P.31 T 9427 belonging to V. Madhavan, the respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P. case dashed against Maruti Car causing death of V. Jayachandra Naidu and Sathyanarayana.

4. The claimants, on account of death of Sathyanarayana, filed M.V.O.P. No. 231 of 2011, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), stating inter alia that the age of the deceased was 46 years on the date of the accident and he was working as Senior Assistant in Primary Health Centre, Penumur and drawing a salary of Rs.18,936/- p.m. Besides, the deceased was also having Ac.10.00 of agricultural land at village Veeramangalam and getting an income of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. from cultivation.

5. The respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P. V. Madhavan is the owner of the Gas tanker lorry who remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2 in M.V.O.P. is the present appellant Insurance Company of the lorry.

6. The respondent No. 3, in the M.V.O.P. S. Sruthi Keerthi, is the daughter of the deceased.

7. Smt. V.S. Rani, respondent No. 4 in M.V.O.P. is the widow of V. Jaychandra Naidu, owner of the Maruti Car who was driving the car and also died in the accident.

8. The respondent No. 2, M/s. National Insurance Company Limited filed written statement denying the petition averments including age, avocation and income of the deceased, Sathyanarayana. Plea was taken that the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the V. Jayachandra Naidu, who was driving the Maruti Car in which deceased Sathyanarayana was travelling. The Insurance Company of the Maruti Car was also necessary party. Liability to pay compensation was denied. The compensation amount as claimed was also stated to be highly excessive and exorbitant.

9. The respondent No. 2 filed additional written statement that the Maruti Car was also insured with the same respondent No. 2 under private car package policy and no additional premium was collected to cover the risk of inmates of car.

10. The respondent No. 3, S. Sruthi Keerthi, (daughter of the deceased) also filed written statement submitting inter alia that she is the only daughter and is also entitled for compensation being class I heir and dependent on the deceased.

11. The respondent No. 4 also filed written statement stating that it was only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry the accident was caused. Consequently, there was no liability for payment of compensation on her.

12. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Gas tanker lorry bearing No. AP31 T 9427 or the driver of the car bearing No. AP03 K 4752?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?”

13. The claimants examined 1st claimant as PW-1 and one G. Sahadevan as PW-2 and also got marked documents as Exs.A1 to A7.

Exhibits marked by claimants:

Ex.A1: Certified Copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 189/2009 of Palamaner P.S.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge shee