( 1 ) AS the three appeals are connected and arise out of the same accident and the Court below disposed of the matters by common judgment, all the three appeals are also being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE Insurance Company is the appellant in all the three appeals. CMA no. 30/2000 is filed challenging the order dated 30. 8. 1999 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in O. P. No. 32/1999 in granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988,

( 3 ) MA CMA Nos. 2739 and 2740 of 2006 have been filed challenging the common order dated 5. 5. 2005 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims tribunal-cum-III Additional District and sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak in M. V. O. P. Nos. 33/1999 and 128/2004.

( 4 ) IT appears that the deceased had two wives and both the wives filed different claim petitions in different Courts and by virtue of the orders of this Court dated 10. 2. 2003 in Tr. CMP No. 412/2002, both the claim petitions were clubbed and the evidence was recorded in OP No. 33 of 1999.

( 5 ) THE case of the claimants is that while the deceased was coming back from shankarampet on his luna on 17. 10. 1997 at about 2. 00 p. m. , at Ambajipet bus stop, tractor-trailor bearing Nos. AP 23 T 2856 and 2857 dashed against his luna and because of the accident, the deceased died on the spot with the bleeding injuries and the pillion rider also sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor - trailer, O. P. No. 33/1999 is filed by one of his wives and children, claiming that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from business and agriculture and because of his death, they lost their livelihood. Hence they claimed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under all the heads. Similarly O. P. No. 128/2004 is filed by another wife and children claiming that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs. 6,000/- by doing agriculture and business and because of his death, they lost their bread winner and hence sought for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

( 6 ) THE Insurance Company filed counters and while denying the negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailor, accident, relationship of the parties with the deceased, income and avocation, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

( 7 ) BASED on the rival pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailor no. AP-23-T-2856 and 2857 ? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and against whom ? 3. To what relief ?

( 8 ) IN support of the case of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-8 were got marked. On behalf of the insurance company, the Senior assistant of the company was examined as r. W. 1 and Ex. B-1 copy of the insurance policy was got marked.

( 9 ) APPRECIATING the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor. With regard to income, the tribunal fixing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after deducing l/3rd towards personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 16, as the deceased was found to be aged 38 years as on the date of the accident; arrived at Rs. 2,40,000/ -. But as the claim petition in OP No. 33/1999 was filed for rs. 1,50,000/-, restricted the award to the said amount with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization. As the claimants in both the petitions filed a joint memo agreeing to share the compensation amount, the Tribunal apportioned the amount equally between the claimants in both the claim petitions.

( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the details with regard to apportionment of the amount, it could be seen that the Tribunal granted rs. 1,25,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document