B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.)THE Claimants, parents of the deceased by name Thogari Anil Kumar, filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -I Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sangreddy (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No. 263 of 2009 dated 13.09.2010, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,62,000/ - (Rupees two lakh sixty two thousand only) as against the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/ - (Rupees four lakh only), against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz., the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle (lorry)for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard M/s. Rameswari Masineni, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Kalpana Ekboti, the learned standing counsel the 2nd respondent -New India Assurance Company Limited and the 1st respondent who was served with notice is called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard the 1st respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
(2.)THE contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from nature of avocation of the deceased and earnings there from and from the age and multiplier that is applicable and also for the loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love, affection, care and protection etc., and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.
Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?

2. To what result?

POINT -1:

(3.)THE facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 10.06.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No. MH -25B -9347) that belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. B.3 policy, dashed to the auto bearing No. AP 23 U 3235 being driven by the deceased, as a result the deceased sustained severe injuries in the occurrence and breathed last while shifting to hospital. It is also not in dispute that the deceased, aged about 21 years - (as per Ex. A.4 Postmortem report) and driver by avocation, which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 171 of 2009 under Section 304A IPC and also proved from Ex. A. 5 M.V. report and evidence of P.W.1 with reference to it and of the eye witness P.W.2. The Tribunal from said evidence on record came to conclusion of there is insurance coverage under Ex. B.1 policy and the 2nd respondent -Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent -owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimants and therefrom taken the earnings of deceased at Rs. 3,000/ - p.m. and half of it of Rs. 1500/ - is taken as loss of monthly income which comes to Rs. 18,000/ - but for the reason that the deceased was unmarried person, the age of mother of the deceased -1st petitioner of 40 years was taken and applied multiplier 14 which comes to Rs. 2,52,000/ -, apart from that Rs. 5,000/ - to each petitioner for loss of love and affection in total awarded compensation of Rs. 2,62,000/ - against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, to be entitled by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.