( 1 ) RESPONDENT nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to also as claimant nos. 1 and 2) are respectively the husband and son of one rajalakshmi. On 22. 5. 1997 she was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No. Dl2-s-d6929 as a pillion rider. Her son (respondent No. 2 herein) was the rider of the motor cycle. According to them, when the motor cycle was proceeding near asc centre, lower agaram road, Bangalore, a military truck bearing registration No. 91-d-89858x which was proceeding in the same direction, suddenly turned to the left in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor bike on the right side; and as a consequence, the said rajalakshmi fell down from the motor cycle and the truck ran over her, as a result of which she died at the spot. Feeling aggrieved, her husband and son filed mvc No. 2566 of 1997 claiming a compensation of Rs. 29,00,000 against the driver (respondent No. 2 before the tribunal and respondent No. 3 in this appeal) and the owners (respondent nos. 1, 3 to 5 before the tribunal and appellants in this appeal) of the truck. The claimants contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the military truck. It was further contended that claimant No. 1 was retired and claimant No. 2 was a student and the deceased who was aged 53 years and employed as an officer in andhra bank getting a salary of Rs. 16,852 per month, was their source of income.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein resisted the claim. They contended that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver. According to them, the motoi cycle and the truck were proceeding in the same direction; that the motor-cyclist who was proceeding at a high speed tried to overtake the truck on the left side, went over a slushy portion of the road and lost control of the vehicle and the motor cycle skidded as a result of which the said rajalakshmi fell down from the vehicle which resulted in the accident. Respondents denied that the military truck ran over the deceased. Lastly, it was contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: (1) whether petitioners prove that the deceased died in an accident that took place on 22. 5. 1997 at 8. 45 a. m. , near asc centre, opp. To army institute of hotel management, lower agaram road, Bangalore on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of military truck bearing No. 91-d- 89858x? (2) whether the respondents prove that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of petitioner No. 2, of motor cycle bearing No. Dl2-s-d-6929? (3) whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? (4) what order/award?

( 4 ) THE husband of the deceased was examined as pw 1. Son of the deceased who was also an eyewitness, was examined as pw 2. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem was examined as pw 3. The claimants marked exhs. P-1 to p-15. The driver of the military truck was examined as rw 1. A person in military service, who was sitting in the cabin of the military truck along with the driver, was examined as rw 2.

( 5 ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, the tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by judgment and award dated 11. 11. 1999. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the military truck by its driver; and that there was no negligence on the part of the motor-cyclist. It held that the said rajalakshmi died in the motor accident as a result of such negligence and the claimants as her legal heirs were entitled to compensation. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,06,000 as compensation with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved, respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the claim petition have filed this appeal contending as follows: (A) the finding of the tribunal regarding negligence is erroneous and t