The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, considering factors such as the cause of the accident, liability of the parties involved, and the calculation of compensation under relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J. - Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Claimants, Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for Oriental Insurance Company and Sri P.Vinodkumar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.

2. The appeal in MACMA No.2185/2018 is preferred by the claimants/Appellants (in short, the claimants), U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal) dtd. 7/5/2018, wherein the Tribunal partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.50, 65, 000.00 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Madakam Rajulu in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 8/3/2015.

3. The appeal in MACMA No.1972/2018 is preferred by the 4th respondent/Appellant (in short, the A.P.S.R.T.C.) U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the same judgment and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.339/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal).

4. The appeal in MACMA No.3226/2018 is preferred by the 3rd respondent/Appellant (in short, the Oriental Insurance Company) U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the same judgment and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.339/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal).

5. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 8/3/2015 at about 07.00 p.m. Madakam Rajulu, Police Constable (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was going to Pulagatigudem village of Jangareddygudem Mandal on his Hero Glamour Motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5633 to serve summons to witness in Cr.No.62/2013 of Koyyalagudem Police Station; when he reached near Narasannapalem Village on State Highway Road, 1st respondent being the driver of APSRTC Hired Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, without taking any precautions and without giving any indication, applied sudden brakes on the middle of the road; as a result, the deceased dashed the bus from its behind, fell down and sustained multiple and grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Jangareddygudem, and from there to GSL General Hospital, Rajahmundry for better treatment, and on 20/3/2015 at about 04.40 p.m. the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC hired Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the bus; The 3rd respondent is insurer of the bus, and the said bus was hired with the 4th respondent/APSRTC.

The 1st petitioner is wife of the deceased; The 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the deceased; The 3rd petitioner and 4th petitioner are the parents of the deceased; Hence, the claim petition is filed for compensation of Rs.70, 00, 000.00 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

6. The respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., driver of the bus and owner of the bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 did not appear before the learned Tribunal, and were set ex-parte on 10/8/2015. The respondents No.3 and 4 contested the claim petition by filing separate written statements.

7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased; The 1st respondent had no driving license, 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the bus was hired with the 4th respondent, and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation.

8. The 4th respondent/APSRTC filed written statement, contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased; The 2nd respondent is original owner and the 3rd respondent in insurer and