JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2005 in M.V.O.P. No.842 of

2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tri- bunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Markapur (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal not fastening the liability on the insurance company and also not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. It is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) claiming compensation for Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Shaik Mahaboob Pera (hereinaf-

ter referred to as 'deceased').

4. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the husband of the first claimant, the father of claimants 2 to 4.

5. The claimant's case is that on 26.04.1998 at about 02.00 PM, the deceased and some others stayed at the Devarajugattu bus stop to go to Markapur. At that time, the lorry bearing No.AP12T5095 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle')

stopped there. All the persons, including the deceased, boarded the lorry with the driver's permission. While the lorry was going at high speed and reaching Gundlakamma bridge, the driver lost control of the vehicle, went towards the left side of the road, and turned turtle, as a result of which two per- sons, including the deceased, died on the spot and some oth- ers, received injuries. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

6. The 1st respondent is the owner, and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The 1st respondent is the re-

mained ex-parte.

7. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement contending that the 2nd respondent does not admit the manner of the accident, the age, or the income of the deceased at the time of the acci- dent. The offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving license to drive the lorry, the offending vehicle was not road worth plying, and the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle. As such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation; the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased; the compensation claimed is highly ex-

cessive.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate is-

sues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, and 2nd res-

pondent RW.1 got examined, marked Ex.B.1-policy.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driv- ing of the offending vehicle's driver and the death of the de- ceased was caused due to injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,83,000/- with in- terest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs against the 1st respondent.

The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties.

11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that they are entitled to compensation even against the insurance com- pany ; the insurance company cannot avoid its liability. There is negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver, and consequently, the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable; otherwise, the insurance company has to pay the clai- mants, and thereafter it can recover from the owner. The Tri- bunal, while assessing the compensation, should have seen the loss of estate and loss of consortium. The deduction of 1/3rd of income towards incurring the expenses for the main- tenance of the deceased varies from person to person; the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre.

12. Now the points for determination are

1. whether the Tribunal is justified in not fastening the liability on the insurance company and

2. whether the compensation amount awarded is just and reasonable.

13. There is no serious dispute conc