The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable, as it was based on an erroneous finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/3rd of the deceased's income for personal and living expenses, as the number of dependent family members was 3'. The Tribunal should have deducted only 1/4th of the income.

JUDGMENT

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the Judgment and Award, dtd. 2/12/2005, delivered by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in O.P.No.834 of 2002, whereby, the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.2, 91, 539.50 ps., holding that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with running interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, with proportionate costs of the petition.

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

3. The factual context of the case is as under:

(a) A 37 years old K.Nagireddy, was a Railway Constable, Kakinada Railway Outpost. At the time of his death, the deceased was drawing a monthly gross salary of Rs.6, 111.00. On 28/4/2002 at about 4.15 p.m., the deceased namely, Nagireddy, left his house on his Hero Honda motorcycle from Kakinada in order to go to his native place. When he reached Anaparthi main centre, at that time, the 1st respondent, who is the drivercum-owner of the scooter bearing No.AP 5 C 8179, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Hero Honda motorcycle, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Gangireddy Nursing Home, Anaparthi for giving him first-aid and from there he was shifted to Alert Hospital, Rajahmundry, for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 29/4/2002. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (scooter) bearing No.AP 5 C 8179 by the 1st respondent and based on the FIR lodged by one Brahmananda Reddy, a case in Crime No.40 of 2002 was registered. After investigation of the same, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver (1st respondent) for having committed the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

(b) The wife of the deceased, his two minor children i.e., a son and a daughter filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 before the Tribunal at Rajahmundry on account of his death in the said road traffic accident.

(c) Before the Tribunal, the 1st Respondent/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle (scooter) bearing No.AP 5 C 8179 filed a counter denying the material allegations in the petition and it was pleaded that, at the time of the accident, he was at Hukumpeta Village and he was not at Anaparthi and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and the offending vehicle (scooter) is having valid insurance policy.

(d) The 2nd respondent/Insurer filed a counter contending inter alia that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant.

(e) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the deceased Karri Nagireddy died in motor accident occurred on 28/4/2022 at about 4.15 p.m., near Anaparthi Eye Hospital due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing No.AP 5C 8179 by the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether the petitioners being the dependants of the deceased Karri Nagireddy, are entitled to the compensation of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 with interest thereon from all the respondents with joint and several liability?

(3) To what relief?

(f) During the trial, in order to establish their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, one Sathi Raghuramareddy, who was the eyewitness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2, and M.Vijaya Bhaskar, who was working as an Attender in the offence of Superintendent of Police, Railways was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.15, Ex.X.1 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. The 1st respondent