IMPORTANT POINT
The legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation, and even married and earning sons have a right to apply for compensation, rejecting the limitation of claim towards conventional heads only.

JUDGMENT

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. - Aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, passed in M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 2 to 6, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of claim amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 towards compensation on account of death of deceased Shaik Khadar Bee in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 12/7/2007.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

Petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons and petitioner No.3 is daughter of Smt Shaik Khadar Bee, hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'. The deceased and her husband went to Hyderabad to their relatives house and when they were at Hyderabad, they heard about the death of their relative by name Masthan Vali. On 12/7/2007 they engaged a car bearing No.AP9 TVA 0606 to go to Gummanampadu village and when the car reached Dayyalagandi in Nalgonda District, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at the same time, a lorry bearing No.AP29TA 6317, which was coming in opposite direction, driven by its driver, also came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against each other, as a result, the accident took place. The deceased and her husband died on the spot itself. The driver of the car, who is shown as respondent No.1 in this case, also died on the spot itself.

5. The respondents 2, 4 and 5 remained exparte. The respondents 3 and 6 filed counters separately denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the third and sixth respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the death of the deceased Shaik Khadar Bee, W/o.Khasim Saheb is due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP9 TVA 0606 and lorry bearing No.AP29 TA 6317 by their drivers?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct?

iv. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the offending vehicles and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.50, 000.00 to the claimants towards compensation from the respondents 2 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

9. Heard Sri Mekala Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the offending vehicles, the claimants relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. PW1 is the first petitioner. He is not an eye-witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye-witness to the accident. As per his evidence, he was travelling in the car at the time of accident and due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both t