JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2012 in MVOP No.275 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent - the New India Assurance Company Ltd., represented by Divisional Manager, HDCT Complex, R.S.Road, Kurnool, has preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MV OP for convenience.

3. The claimant had filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of her son - K.Chandrasekhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 0403.2009 at about 9.00 PM when the deceased was sleeping on the platform of Sreenivasa Agro Products Mill, Vattichurukuru Village, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 07 T 2655 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle) drove the same at high speed rashly and negligently and went upon the deceased. The head of the deceased was run over by the vehicle. He died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 12 years and was hale and healthy. He was the only son of the claimant. Subsequently, the father of the deceased was added as 3rd respondent as he did not cooperate with the claimant, who is his wife.

4. The 1st respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, has remained exparte.

5. The 2nd respondent/insurance company has filed its counter, contending that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant; there is also no proof that the deceased was aged about 12 years; the claimant shall prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle's driver.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined, and Exs.A., 1 to A.4, were marked. Let in no oral evidence on behalf of the respondents, and Ex.B.1 marked by consent. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.2,20,000/- with proportionate interest and costs @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ appellant has contended that the Tribunal erred in not deducting 50% of the deceased's income towards personal expenditure. It also erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum, which is excessive and on the higher side.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

9. Now the points for determination are,

1) Whether the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2) Whether is there contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?

POINTS:

10. To prove the accident, the claimant has examined herself as P.W.1; she narrated the manner of the accident in her evidence. She also relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of FIR and Ex.A.2 certified copy of the charge sheet.

11. The same is not disputed by the respondents that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.A.3-certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A.4-certified copy of post-mortem examination report also support the claimant's case in this regard.

12. The respondents place no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In K.Rajani and others, V. M.Satyanarayana Goud and others, 2015 ACJ 797, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that: “when the insurance company knew that the police investigation was false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false".

13. In Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corpor