( 1 ) THE claimant in MV op No. 50 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge-cum- motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, filed this appeal challenging the award with regard to the quantum of compensation granted for the death of his father in a motor accident.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the appellant herein filed MV OP No. 50 of 1989 under Section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act. 1939 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of his father dr. Purushotham Moses in a motor accident. According to the appellant-claimant on 6. 8. 1988 while the deceased was travelling in a Jeep along with one Rev. O. George Gnanayudham, a lorry bearing regd. No. CAS 350 came at a high speed and dashed against the Jeep resulting in the instantaneous death of his father dr. Purushotham Moses, as well as the other occupant of the vehicle, Rev. O. George Gnanayudham and the driver. The claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Regd. No. CAS 350 which is insured with M/s new India Insurance company Limed, and therefore the owner of the lorry as well as the Insurance Company are Jointly and severally liable for the compensation claimed. It is further contended that his deceased father who was aged 70 years at the time of accident was hale and healthy and was working as an Honorary Director and treasurer of the Arogyavaram Medical centre at Madanapalli on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,580/ -. That apart he was also earning rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month as a medical Practitioner. Thus he used to earn rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month. According to the claimant the father of the deceased lived up to the age of 104 years and his elder brother who is still alive is aged 82 years, and therefore as per the history of their family with regard to the longevity of life, but for the accident, the deceased would have lived for another 15 to 20 years. Hence he contended that he is entitled to a sum of rs. 1,51,000/- towards loss of dependency and also a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love affection. However, the claim was restricted to a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. It is also relevant to note that two married daughters of the deceased were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 to the claim petition.

( 3 ) THE dependants of Rev. O. George gnanayudham who also died in the same accident filed MV OP No. 51 of 1989 claiming compensation and the said petition was also tried along with MV OP no. 50 of 1989 and both the petitions were decided by a common order by the Tribunal below.

( 4 ) IN both the OPs the owner of the lorry bearing Regd No. CAS 350, who was made respondent No. 1, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments in the claim petition and contending that the claims made are exorbitant and without any basis.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues in MV OP No. 50 of 1989 for trial:1. Whether the driver of the lorry no. CAS 350 MGV drove the said lorry on 6-8-1988 at about 6. 00 a. m. at Nelavanka near Madnapuram village on N. H. 7 road at a high speed rashly and negligently and caused the accident resulting in the death of the deceased. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom. 3. To what relief?

( 6 ) IN support of the claim in OP no. 50 of 1989, the claimant examined himself as PW4. The elder brother of the deceased was examined as PW2. That apart, the claimant examined four other witnesses and got marked Exs. Al to A7 documents in support of his claim. On behalf of the respondents none was examined. However, copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex. B1.

( 7 ) ON appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal below held on issue No. 1 that the accident in question took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document