JUDGMENT:

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

[i] The claimants in M.V.O.P No.54 of 2007, before the IV Additional District Judge –cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati, (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded under the impugned Award and decree dated 17.02.2011, filed the present appeal.

[ii] M.V.O.P No.54 of 2007 was filed invoking Section 166 of M.V. Act with a prayer for awarding a compensation of Rs.19,66,700/- for the death of the one S.Radhamma, (hereafter referred as ‘the deceased’) in a Motor Vehicle accident, that occurred on 19.09.2006.

2. The 1st petitioner is the husband and 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the deceased, represented by the 1st petitioner. 

3. Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT is the driver of the Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP 03 W 3330 and AP 03 W 3331 respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the insurer.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

5 (i). On 19.09.2006, the deceased was proceeding on a Hero Honda bearing No.AP 03 L 5806 as a pillion rider to attend her duties as staff Nurse at Sri Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tripathi, and her husband was riding the vehicle. When they reached near Cherlapalle Circle, the offending vehicle driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle causing the accident, whereby the deceased fell down and the offending vehicle ran over her causing grievous injuries. When she was shifted to the hospital, it was declared that she was brought dead.

(ii) A case in Crime No.114 of 2006 for the offences under section 337, 304-A and 279 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in M.R.Palle Police Station and later charge sheet was filed.

(iii) The 1st petitioner is husband and the 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the deceased, they are the legal heirs and dependents on the deceased. They lost everything including financial and every support of the deceased. Hence they are entitled for compensation.

(iv) The 1st respondent - driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte before the learned MACT.

Case of the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company:-

6. (i) The petitioners shall prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as well as the compliance of the conditions of Insurance Policy.

(ii) Negligence of the husband of the deceased cannot be ignored and the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and injurer of the motorcycle.

Evidence before the Learned MACT:-

On behalf of the petitioners/claimants:

7. (i) The petitioners relied on Exhibits - A1- FIR, A2 -Post-Mortem Certificate, A3- Inquest Report, A4 and A5 - Salary Certificates issued by the hospital where the deceased said to have worked; A6- Death Certificate, A7-Certificates of qualification of the deceased. A8- Charge Sheet.

(ii) Further, the claimants relied on the evidence of 1st petitioner as PW1, PW2- K Prasad eye- witness to the accident; PW3 and PW4 –B.Mohan Murali and Dr.D.B.Sasidhar Reddy, to show the occupation and income of the deceased, etc..

(iii) On behalf of the respondents, no evidence is introduced except placing copy of the Insurance Policy vide Ex.B1.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

8. (i) The learned MACT, relying on the evidence of PW.2- eyewitness and the Crime record, held that the claimants proved the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle/Tractor and Trailor, and by relying on the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 and Ex.A4- salary certificate, Ex.A7-Qualification certificates, accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.4158/- per month and Rs.49,896/-

rd per annum; after deducting 1/3 of the same towards personal expenditure of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the petitioners/claimants, accepted @Rs.33,2