JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, J.

This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 02.12.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.9/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition against the 1st respondent/driver and 2nd respondent/owner only, awarded compensation of Rs.8,73,000/-with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Akula Durga Rao @ Durga in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-on account of the death of Akula Durga Rao @ Durga, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, and son of petitioners No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.04.2013.

4. The facts show that on 04.04.2013 at about 09.30 p.m., while the deceased Akula Durga Rao @ Durga along with others were travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP5 BT 5947 when it was proceeding towards Burugupudi, the 1st respondent, being the driver of the tractor, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, lost control over the same, due to which the tractor and trailer turned turtle, and as a result, the deceased Akula Durga Rao @ Durga, who sat in the trailer fell under the tractor and died on the spot. Police registered a case in Cr.No.46/2013 for the offence punishable U/s.338 and 304-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE against the 1st respondent. The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 25 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.300/-per day as jattu coolie. The 1st respondent being driver, the 2nd respondent being owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of tractor bearing No.AP 5 BT 5947 and trailer bearing No.AP 5 AB 5937 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Due to death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company, Rajahmundry, filed a counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, contended that the vehicle is not a passenger carrying vehicle, and the averment that deceased was loading and unloading coolie is not correct and thereby terms of insurance policy were violated, and hence, it need not indemnify the owner. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident arose due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 5 BT 5947 & AP 5 AB 5937 by 1st respondent, resulting death of the deceased?

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

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took p