JUDGMENT :

V. SUJATHA, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 01.07.2021, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2017. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide the issues by way of a common judgment.

2. The claimants filed an application before the Tribunal, initially under Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989which was subsequently amended vide order dated 30.07.2019 in I.A.No.527 of 2019 to that of a petition under Section 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Kunduri Krishna (hereinafter referred to as ‗deceased‘) in a road accident that occurred on 20.08.2014 at Mudra School, Yerragondapalem. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.9,77,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.9 of 2022 and the 3^rd respondent/insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2021.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referredto as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are daughters and the claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased. The 1^st respondent is the driver and the 2^nd respondent is the owner of the auto bearing No.AP-27-TT-8922 and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the auto. On 20.08.2014, the deceased, who is aged about 40 years, along with his children went to Thripuranthakam and while returning to Yerragondapalem, he got into an auto bearing No.AP-27-TT-8922 which was driven by the 1^st respondent. When the auto reached Mudra School, Yerragondapalem, at about 11.00 a.m., the 1^st respondent drove the same in rash and negligent manner, which led to the fall of the deceased out of the auto. The deceased sustained a head injury and was immediately shifted to Government General hospital, Guntur where he succumbed to injuries on 01.09.2014 at about 03.00 p.m., while he was undergoing treatment.The incident was reported to Yerragondpalem Police Station and accordingly a case was registered in Crime No.82 of 2014 against the 1^st respondent under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. The 3^rd respondent – insurance company, filed its counter affidavit denying the material allegations and contended that as per registration certificate, permit and policy pertaining to the auto bearing No.AP-27-TT-8922, its seating capacity is ‗3+1‘, which included the driver, but, as per the FIR, nine members were travelling in the auto at the time of accident. It further contended that the 1^st respondent was not holding a valid license at the time of accident, which is breach of the contract and as such, the 2^nd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It further contended that the claim petition itself is not maintainable as it is filed under Section 163-A, whereas the claimants have shown the income of the deceased. A petition under Section 163-A has to be filed in connection with II-Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act without admitting the occupation and income of the deceased. It further contended that II- Schedule applies only where the income of the deceased does not cross Rs.40,000/- per annum, but, it is the version of the claimants that the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/-.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the death of the deceased Kunduri Krishna @Krishnudu occurred at 11.00 a.m., on 20.08.2014 at Mudra School, Yerragondapalem – Tripuranthakam Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent driver of the auto bearing No. AP 27 TT 8922 of the 2^nd respondent?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount against whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the cou