JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.142 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur, the United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Anantapur-2nd respondent herein has preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act), claiming a compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of their son Sangala Ramu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). He died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.11.2008.

4. The claimant's case is that on 22.11.2008, while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle towards Sapthagiri Circle from Sainagar, and when he reached Baby hospital, the bus driver bearing No. K.A. 20 8104 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle) drove the same rash and negligently at high speed, lost control over the same and dashed against the cyclist-Sangala Ramu (deceased); thereby, he died on the spot.

5. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that the accident was caused only due to the deceased's negligence; the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2 on behalf of the 2nd respondent. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver and granted compensation of Rs.4,35,000/- to the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum.

8. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/appellant contends that the deceased is an unmarried person, therefore, his contribution of earnings to the welfare of the family members would be 50%, but the Tribunal considered the contribution of the earnings at 1/3rd, which is contrary to the settled law. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the mother's age is 43 years. It is further contended as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 the appropriate multiplier for the person's age group 41 to 45 years is ‘14’, and the Tribunal also erred in relying on the self-serving statement of P.W.3 and considered the income at Rs.3,500/- per month, which is highly excessive and as per the F.I.R., the alleged accident occurred due to unknown vehicle. In the absence of any material the insured vehicle was implicated in the case.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

11. Now point for consideration is, whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

12. The first claimant, the deceased's father, was examined as P.W.1. In the evidence, he testified about the manner of the accident. Since he is not an eyewitness to the accident, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence regarding the manner of the accident. However, the claimant got examined P.W.2-U.Narayana deposed that when the deceased reached Baby hospital, the offending vehicle, came from the Sapthagiri circle side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same, and dashed against the deceased. The 2nd respondent got examined R.W.1-S.Srirama Naik in support of its case. Admittedly, he is also not an eyewitness to the accident in question. The 2nd respondent relied on E