JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the M.V. Act’) by the appellants challenging the Order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Judge, Family Court – cum – VI Additional District Judge at Khammam in MVOP.No.861 of 2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as claim petitioners and respondents.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Paladuga Babu Rao (herein after will be referred as deceased). On 06.06.2017, the deceased was proceeding towards Bheemavaram on his motor-cycle bearing No.AP 16 CX 2522 for servicing of his vehicle, when he reached Madhavanigudem check-post, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 5496, proceeding in the same direction applied sudden breaks without giving signal and stationed the lorry in the middle of the road on that the deceased dashed the stationed lorry from the back side, fell on the road, received injuries and he was shifted to Varma Hospital, Bhimavaram, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on the same day. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 5496. The deceased worked as Lorry driver and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month and he was aged about 55 years as on the date of accident. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their earning member which subjected to mental agony and claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (initially claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- subsequently enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- vide orders in IA.No.241 of 2019, dated 03.04.2019).

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contended that the driver of crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and that the matter of accident was not reported to respondent No.2, the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The earnings of the deceased is also disputed by respondent No.2 by filing additional counter as there is no document to prove the same.

5. Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased Paladugu Babu Rao died in the accident dated 06.06.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 16 TB 5496?

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

3. To what relief?

6. Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3, got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondents did not lead any evidence but got marked Ex.B1/Certified Copy of Insurance Policy.

7. Learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has partly allowed the O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally by awarding an amount of Rs.13,80,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to deposit the compensation amount within one (1) month from the date of the order (09.07.2019). The petitioners were awarded an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- each and they were permitted to withdraw the same.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding an amount of Rs.13,80,000/- towards compensation @ 7.5% per annum. The deceased was working as a Lorry driver and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the appellants. The appellants have challenged the quantum only.

9. Service on respondent No.1 is served on 22.03.2022.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that PW.3 has not produced any material to show that he was paying Rs.30,000/- per month to the deceased. So also the appellants have not filed the driving license of the deceased and the trial Court has considered Ex.A6 and rightly