JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2005 in M.V.O.P. No.169 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

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

3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (short 'MV Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-for the death of Ohankali Lakshmi Devi @ Lakshmi, who is the daughter-in-law of the claimants. The said Ohankali Lakshmi Devi will hereinafter be referred to as “the deceased”.

4. The claimant's case is that on 28.08.2002 at about 06.00 AM, the deceased and her husband and daughter were travelling in an Ambassador car bearing No. AP-09-J-6426 belonging to respondent No.3, which is insured with Respondent No.4 to attend to the marriage of their relative. When the said car was passing on the extreme left side of the road at Ramarajupalli on NH-7 road, suddenly a lorry bearing No.KA-03-A-5200 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') belonging to respondent No.1, which is insured with respondent No.2, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car, as a result of which, the car has damaged fully. The deceased sustained grievous injuries, and immediately she was shifted to the hospital for treatment. She died on 01.09.2022 while undergoing treatment.

5. Respondents 1 and 3, who are the owners of the lorry and car, respectively, have remained ex parte.

6. The second respondent filed its written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, but not rashness or negligence on the part of the lorry driver. Since the car driver died, a case had been registered against the lorry driver. The claimants were not dependents upon the earnings of the deceased. The deceased is not an earning member, but she is only a housewife. The quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. The fourth respondent filed its written statement submitting that the claimants did not issue any notice before filing the claim petition. The compensation claimed is excessive. The accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the lorry driver, but not due to rashness or negligence of the car driver.

8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Exs.X1 and X2. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is eschewed. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1's lorry and awarded compensation Rs.1,00,000/-together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against the respondents No.1 and 2, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, dismissing the claim against respondents 3 and 4.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties.

11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the trial court ought to have considered Exs.A.4 to A.8 issued by reputable institutions and Telugu Vishwavidyalayam (university); and ought to have considered Ex.A.10 photos which show that the deceased was a professional dancer.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

13. Now the point for determination is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and requires modification?

POINT:

14. As seen from grounds of appeal and contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellants/claimants, it can be seen that the tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to rash