JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V. O.P. No.24 of 2010 against the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur, (for short, ‘the tribunal’), wherein the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,32,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of G.Mallikarjuna, who is the son of claimants 1 and 2, brother of claimants 3 to 5, in a motor accident that occurred on 21.03.2007 at about 3.15 PM when himself along with one Obi Reddy were taking cup of tea in front of Jayamma hotel near Kalluru by pass road on N.H. 7 standing on the extreme road margin, the truck bearing No.AP 27 U 5184 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed him and as such he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the truck driver had no valid driving licence and it was known to the respondent No.1. It is violation of policy conditions and as such respondent No.1 is only liable to pay compensation and further contended that the claim is highly excessive.

5. The tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.2,32,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the tribunal has not appreciated the claim of the appellants in its right perspective and granted inadequate compensation.

6. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted their case in consonance with the averments made in the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has contended that the tribunal has passed award in accordance with law and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The 2nd respondent did not file any appeal or cross objections aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal and therefore, this Court need not go into other aspects of the case except the issue of enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

10. Now the point for consideration is, whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just in the facts and circumstances of the case or it requires enhancement?

POINT:

11. As seen from the averments of the claim petition, the claimants filed their claim under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is averred in the petition that though the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, but they restricted their claim to Rs.3,50,000/-. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased as pleaded in the petition and as deposed in the evidence is not in dispute. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant himself got examined as P.W.1 and the eye witness of the accident and who lodged the complaint was examined as P.W.2 to prove the accident in question and also to prove about the death of the deceased in the accident got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was let in, but the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. After evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the tribunal has given a finding that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and the said finding is supported by the documents placed on record.

12. As far as the quantum of compensation, the tribunal has observed that there is no dispute