JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioners against the order and decree dated 08.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.564 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 09.01.2012, the deceased, late B. Ramesh was proceeding in vehicle Toyota Quallis bearing No. AP15AS2328 as a driver as per the directions of his employer. He then reached ear Allapur outskirts of Toopran and the deceased halted the vehicle to attend nature calls and got down from the front door. At that time, one lorry bearing No. RJ192G0241 came from Potharajupallly side which was driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, then hit the Quallis vehicle from behind and the deceased died on spot. The Government hospital, Gajwel conducted postmortem. The deceased B. Ramesh died leaving behind his legal heirs who are the petitioners herein. On the said incident, the police Toopran registered a case vide Cr.No.4 of 2012 and later after due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the above said lorry. Hence the appellants filed a claim petition before the Court below, claiming Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Only).

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

4. The Court below after hearing both sides, framed issues and the 1st appellant got herself examined as PW-1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is a Certified Copy of FIR in Cr. No. 4 of 2012; Ex.A2 is the Charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the Inquest; Ex.A4 is the PMA report; Ex.A5 is the MVI report; Ex.A6 is the Spot Panchnama and Ex.A7 is the Driving license of the deceased. The eye-witness was examined as PW-2.

5. The Court below after considering all issues, allowed the petition in part by granting Rs.12,52,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Only) with costs in all with an interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs and the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner was entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) and was permitted to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) in costs and the remaining amount of her share shall be kept in FDR for 4 years. The 4th and 5thpetitioners were entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each. The 4th petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDR for 1 year. The 5th petitioner was permitted to withdraw the entire share amount. The remaining amount along with the entire interest was entitled to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and their share amount shall be kept in FDR till they attain the age of majority. The petitioner was further directed to open a bank account in their village in a nationalized bank in accordance to Rule 471 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. Against the above order, the present appeal is filed questioning the quantum.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Perused the record.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal granted less compensation without appreciating oral and documentary evidence which was filed in support of the petitioners’ case and further failed to consider the income of the deceased as per the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 2875 which was in support of his claim. The court below erred in considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) per annum only, in absence of evidence. Under the above grounds, the petitioners are seeking the enhancement of compensation.

8. Against the contentions of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent argued that no salary certificate was produced i