THE TRIBUNALS ARE EXPECTED TO MAKE AN AWARD BY DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION WHICH SHOULD APPEAR TO BE JUST AND PROPER, EVEN IF IT IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.

ORDER :

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellants/Claimants challenging the Award dated 22.03.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum District Judge, Nellore in M.V.O.P.No.297 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the petitioners/claimants i.e., wife and two children of the deceased-Nagaraju, from the date of petition till date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on account of his death in a road accident that occurred near Saibaba Temple, Gudur Rural, Nellore District on 22.05.2004.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition.

3. Y.Nagaraju, aged 36 years who is a rickshaw puller at the time of his death, was earning an amount of Rs.200/- per day and monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month. On 22.05.2004 when the deceased and his brother-in-law were coming from ice factory and after crossing Saibaba temple, the offending lorry bearing No.ABK 9949 came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased as a result of which, he fell down and received multiple injuries and while he was shifted to Tirupati for treatment, he was died. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and based on the FIR lodged by Malakotaiah, who was sitting on the backside of the rickshaw of the deceased, a case in Crime No.63 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver of the offending lorry for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The wife and two children of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore on account of his death in the said road accident.

4. The 1st respondent did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company resisted the claim and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the rashness attributed to the driver of the offending lorry, age of the deceased, income of the deceased, dependency of the petitioners. The insurance of the vehicle is admitted and the claim of the petitioners is excessive and untenable.

5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle of respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. None were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.

7. Appreciating the evidence of P.W.1/claimant and placing reliance upon Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.B.1, attested copies of FIRs, attested copy of inquest report, certified copy of the charge sheet, attested copy of post mortem report and true copy of the Insurance Policy etc., the Tribunal was of the view that the accident in the instant case was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle. The Tribunal then proceeded to assess the compensation and quantified an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and consequently, it passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with proportionate costs with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants jointly and severally payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the instant appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitt