IMPORTANT POINT
In motor accident claims, the appellate court cannot enhance compensation in the absence of cross-objections, and must uphold the Tribunal's findings unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 16.03.2019 in M.V.OP.No.130 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty (for short “Tribunal”), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim of compensation filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of one Yerradoddi Lakshmi Devi (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 21.07.2017, awarded a sum of Rs.13,86,250/- towards compensation and apportioned the same in favour of the claimants.

2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimants, in brief, in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2017 is that on 21.07.2017 morning, the first claimant and his wife by name Y. Lakshmi Devi i.e., deceased left Rayachoty to go to their agricultural land by taking Tomato Naru on their Scooty bearing No.A.P.04-AU-4481. The first claimant was riding the Scooty slowly on the left side of the road and his wife was pillion rider. At about 9-00 a.m., they reached near the bus stop of Regadigunta Vandlapalli Village of Sambepalli Mandal on N.H.40. Then, the first respondent, who is the driver of Car bearing No.A.P.03-CC-0004 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn while proceeding towards Sambepalli side from Rayachoty side. He lost control over the offending vehicle due to speed and dashed against the front going Scooty on which the first claimant and his wife were moving. Then, they fell down on the road from the Scooty. They received serious injuries all over their bodies. The wife of the first claimant i.e., the pillion rider died on the spot. The accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The police registered FIR in Crime No.207 of 2017 against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was aged 49 years, hale and healthy and she was doing cultivation and a milk vendor. She was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and was contributing to her family. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependants on the deceased. The first respondent is the driver, the second respondent is the owner and the third respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte.

5. The third respondent got filed a counter opposing the claim and contended in substance that the claimants have to prove the age, income and earnings of the deceased and the manner of accident as alleged. The claimant Nos.2 and 4, the daughters, are not legal heirs and dependants. Compensation claimed is excessive.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.A.P.03-CC-0004, near Regadiguntapalli bus stop of Sambepalli village on NH-40 and that resulted in causing death of Yerradoddi Lakshmi Devi on 21.07.2017 at about 9-00 a.m.?

(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered the issues in favour of the claimants and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.13,86,250/- as compensation and apportioned the same as Rs.7,00,000/- to the first claimant and Rs.2,28,750/- each to the claimants 2 to 4.

9. The unsuccessful insurance company/third respondent felling that the compensation so awarded is excessive and that it is not liable to pay the sa