JUDGMENT :

G. SRI DEVI, J.

1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 16.09.2006, passed in O.P. No. 343 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge) at Khammam (for short “the Tribunal”) the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The 1st claimant (since died) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. On 02.11.2001 at about 4.15 hours, while he, along with other family members, was proceeding in an Auto bearing No. AP-20-U-1596 in between Mondikunta and Manuguru cross roads, the 1st respondent drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the auto turned turtle and the 1st claimant received grievous injury to spinal card, crush injury on nervous system, injury on head and other bleeding injuries all over the body. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No. 130 of 2001 has been registered against the 1st respondent. The 1st claimant was working as Chairman in S.C. Company Limited and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also stated that on account of the accident, the body of the 1st claimant became paralyzed, he was unable to move out of his bed, he could not attend his duties since the date of accident and he spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the 1st claimant filed the above O.P. against the respondents 1 to 3, being the driver, owner and insurer of the Auto.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the involvement of the auto; rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent; manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and earnings of the 1st claimant and also the injuries, treatment and disability sustained by the 1st claimant. It is contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

4. During pendency of the claim-petition, the 1st claimant died and the claimants 2 to 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of the 1st claimant.

5. After impleading the claimants 2 to 5, the 3rd respondent filed additional counter stating that the claim of the 1st claimant abated since he died and that there is no nexus between the alleged injuries and death of the 1st claimant. There is no record to show that the 1st claimant died on account of alleged injuries and his death took place three years after the alleged incident.

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

(1) Whether D. Butchi Raju (Paralysed patient) injured in a motor accident occurred on 02.11.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No. AP-20-U-1596 by its driver/R1?

(2) Whether the auto bearing No. AP-20-U-1596 is owned by the 2nd respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent on the date of accident? If so, to what is the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner by the respondents jointly and severally?

(3) To what relief?

7. After the death of the 1st claimant, the following additional issue has been framed:

“Whether the petitioners 2 to 5 are L.Rs. of claim petitioner No. 1 and entitled for compensation?”

8. On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked besides Exs.X1 and X2 through Advocate Commissioner. On behalf of the Insurance Company, RWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

9. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 73,560/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by claimants.

10. Learned Counsel for the claimants would submit that the medical rec