The Court applied the principles of contributory negligence and precedents to enhance the compensation amount beyond the claimed sum.

JUDGMENT :

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 01.09.2006 passed in O.P.No.242 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Mahabubnagar, (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under :

4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of one D. Yellaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased). It is stated that on 17.01.2004, the deceased was going to Macharam Village on his cycle to attend labour work at Laxmi Narayana Rice Mill, Jadcherla, when he reached near cross roads of Macharam on N.H.NO.7, one Toyota Qualis Car bearing No.AP 09 CH-R-1557 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.8 of 2004 has been registered against the driver of the said Car. It is stated that the deceased was 45 years old and working as Hamali in a Rice Mill and earning Rs.150/- per day and due to the sudden death of the deceased the claimants lost their source of income and love and affection. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Qualis Car, the claimants filed the above O.P. against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the said Car respectively.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and also the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the accident occurred due to gross negligence of the deceased but not the driver of the Car and as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further stated that the driver of the Toyota Qualis Car was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred on 17.01.2004, at about 9.00 a.m., near Macharam Village cross road, due to rash and negligent driving of Toyota Qualis Car bearing No.AP-09/CH/R-1557/AD09X-1553 by its driver and whether it resulted in causing the death of D.Yadaiah?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom?

(3) To what relief ?

8. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-Insurance Policy was marked.

9. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the Car and assessed the said negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the Car and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents.

10. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also submitted that though the deceased was getting Rs.4,,500/- per month by doing hamali work in a Rice Mill, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day. It is further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants