JUDGMENT:

T.C.D.SEKHAR, J.

1. As these two appeals arise out of order dated 06.03.2020 in MVOP No.9 of 2018, on the file of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. MACMA No.465 of 2020 was filed by APSRTC stating that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. Whereas MACMA No.426 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner seeking to enhance the compensation as the same is not inconsonance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi”, 2017 (16) SCC 680.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother Ankamma was coming back home in Rickshaw after fishing in Medapi Tank. When she reached Ganapavaram Cold Storage on Guntur-Kurnool Highway, offending RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP07Z 0311 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Rickshaw from behind. As a result of which the deceased died on the spot and two other persons sustained bleeding injuries. A case in Crime No.101 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the offending bus, on the file of Tripuranthakam Police Station. The petitioners are the children of the deceased. It was further case of the petitioner that the deceased was hale and healthy as on the date of accident and was earning an amount of RS.10,000/- per month by selling honey, fishing and also attending to coolie works. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their financial support, love and affection. It is further contended that as the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 3^rd respondent/driver of the offending bus, the respondents are liable to pay compensation as claimed by them.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the sons of Yasurantam, where as the name of the husband of the deceased was mentioned as Y.Srinivasulu. It was further stated that as the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 left the company of the deceased and are living with their grandfather, they cannot be treated as dependents as such they is not liable to receive compensation. With the above pleadings, the respondent claimed that it is not entitled to pay any compensation. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 3^rd respondent/driver of the offending bus stating that the bus was going slowly and when it applied sudden break, the Rickshaw dashed the bus from behind and thereby the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the Rickshaw. As such, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 3^rd respondent/driver.

6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, they have examined their grandfather Y.Ankalu as PW-1 and filed documentary evidence and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW-1 and no documentary evidence was placed. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.11,82,000/- under various conventional heads in favour of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 while dismissing claim made by the petitioner No.1

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both the claimants and the respondents approached this Court by way of the present appeals.

8. Heard counsel for APSRTC and counsel appearing for claimants.

9. Perused the record.

10. The counsel for the APSRTC would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of rider of tricycle/rickshaw. In order to prove the same, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW-1.

11. A perusal of the evidence of RW-1 would go to show that the bus was going slowly and when it applied sudden break, the rider of the tricycle/rickshaw dashed th