1. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel, argued on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Kurtikar, learned Counsel, argued on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07/09/2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (Tribunal, for short) in Claim Petition No. 13 of 2012.

4. The appellant was the respondent no. 3-Insurance Company in the said claim petition; respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants; and respondents no. 4 and 5 were the respondents no. 1 and 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred as per their status in the said Claim Petition.

5. The claimants had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) claiming compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/-, on account of death of son of claimant no.1 and the brother of claimants no. 2 and 3 who died in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 24/11/2011 at about 13.30 hours at Dhulai, Dharbandora, Sanguem, Goa.

6. Case of the claimants was that on the said date and at the said time, the deceased Yellappa Jedi, one Mr. Hanumant Mane and one mechanic by name Mr. Tippanna were standing by the side of the road going from Dhabal to Dharbandora between two tipper trucks and at that time, the respondent no.1 drove the tipper truck bearing no. GA-08/U-0076 while proceeding from Dharbandora to Dhabal in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to one standing truck bearing no. GA-05/T-2563, which went back and deceased Yellappa was crushed between both the standing trucks and sustained grievous injuries which resulted into his death.

7. The claimants contended that the deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident, and was the owner of two tipper trucks used for transporting iron ore from the mines and was earning Rs. 1,83,225/- per year. They further alleged that they incurred expenses of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and other miscellaneous expenses and claimed the total compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/-. The respondents no. 1 and 2, who were respectively the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, though were duly served, remained absent and the matter proceeded ex-parte against them. The matter was contested only by the respondent no. 3-Insurance Company which is the appellant now before this Court.

8. The respondent no. 3, in its written statement, denied that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. It also denied that the deceased was the owner of two tipper trucks and having annual income of Rs. 1,83,225/-. The respondent no. 3 alleged that the amount claimed by the claimants was excessive and exorbitant and that the claimants were not entitled to the compensation as claimed. However, it was admitted that the respondent no. 3 had issued policy in respect of the said tipper truck owned by the respondent no. 2.

9. Issues were framed as per the rival contentions of the parties. The claimants examined the claimant no. 2 namely Kariappa Yamanppa Jedi as AW1 and eye witness namely Tipannam alias Tipuraj Kotargasti as AW2 and closed their evidence. The respondent no. 3 did not lead any evidence in defence.

10. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the evidence of AW2, the eye witness stood fully corroborated by the complaint dated 24/11/2011, the copy of which is at Exhibit-26 and also by the panchanama of spot of accident and sketch which are at Exhibit-27 colly. The Tribunal held that the inquest panchanama at Exhibit-28 and memorandum of autopsy at Exhibit-30 proved that the death of Yellappa Jedi took place as a result of the crushing damage to the abdominal vital organs, spine and pelvis by blunt force crushing impact and he died on 24/11/2011 prior to 17.07 hours. Since, the respondent no. 1 who was the driver of the offending truck, did not enter the witness box to explain as to how the acc