JUDGMENT :

(Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.)

This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the Appellant/ Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai challenging the Award dated 18.01.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Eluru (for short “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.130 of 2005 granting compensation of Rs.4,31,780/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and with proportionate costs from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the Respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition, jointly and severally, on account of the death of Mungara Prasada Rao in the accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Heard Sri K.Subbarao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 4.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2004 M.Prasadarao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was proceeding from his native place Sriparru to Kaikaluru for purchasing the rice feed for fish along with Veerullu, Saidu Rangababu and Jayamangala Madhusudana Rao. On that day, the deceased purchased the rice feed, loaded into Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 37 V 2787 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). After loading the rice feed, while returning, when they reached outskirts of Lokamudigaruvu near Kumar Industries, at about 15.30 hours the 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, without blowing horn, unable to control the lorry and dashed against the cement pole which was on the side of the road. As a result, the said lorry fell on the roadside tank. Due to the incident the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Based on the report given by Saidu Rangababu, a case in Crime No.70 of 2004 for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 IPC was registered by Mandavalli Police, Krishna District and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC.

(ii) At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month in fish business and used to maintain his family. The wife, son and parents (petitioners 1 to 4) of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased in the road accident.

(iii) The 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that there was no fault on the part of this respondent in connection with the alleged accident. It was further averred that by the date of the accident, the insurance policy was in force and the claim made against this respondent is liable to be dismissed.

(iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the date and time of the accident and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. Further, he would submit that the petitioners should prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. Further averred that the petitioners/claim