JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2009 in M.V.O.P. No.521 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (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 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of Zibbidi Jamanna and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for bullocks.

4. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the husband of the first claimant, the father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of claimants 4 and 5. The said Zibbidi Jamanna would hereinafter be referred to as “the deceased”.

5. The claimants’ case is that on 16.05.2005 at about 09.15 PM, the deceased, after purchasing six buffaloes, started from Kothavalasa to Alamanda sandy; when he reached Alamanda village at approximately 11.00 PM, a lorry bearing No. A.P. 35 T 7288 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") proceeding from Vizianagaram side to Kothavalasa side, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed even without blowing any horn or following traffic rules, dashed the deceased and buffaloes. Due to this, the deceased died on the spot, three buffaloes also died, and three buffaloes sustained injuries.

6. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

7. The third respondent filed its written statement contending that the claimants have to prove that there is an employer and employee relationship between the respondents. The claimants have to prove that the 1st respondent driver had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent and that the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The accident occurred only due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased but not on the first respondent. The quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the third respondent, no evidence was adduced on its behalf, but got marked Ex.B.1-policy by consent.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., the first respondent, awarded compensation Rs.2,10,000/- i.e., Rs.20,000/- compensation towards loss caused due to death of buffaloes and towards injured buffalo and bull and Rs.1,90,000/- towards the death of deceased) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents No.1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

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

11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the case properly and granted the award for the death of buffaloes and towards injured buffalo and bull, but it is a meager amount. Hence it is illegal; the Tribunal failed to consider the case of the deceased that he was hale and healthy, and he used to earn Rs.200/- per day by doing cattle business and labour work. But nowadays, even daily labour is earning more than Rs.200/- per day, hence the finding of the Tribunal is illegal.

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 o