JUDGMENT :

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide judgment and decree, dated 30.01.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1902 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and also on fixing contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was proceeding.

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

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

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of one Barla Bhaskar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.10.2004. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding in the Auto bearing No. AP 24V 1443 from Siripuram Village, when the auto reached near Pochamma temple, the offending vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 36U 6282, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2 and hired with respondent No. 3, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the auto. As a result, the deceased received multiple injuries and died. According to the claimants, who are parents and siblings of deceased, the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as electrician. Therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.5.00 lakhs against the respondents towards compensation under various heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent No. 2, insurance company, contested the O.P. by filing counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition. Respondent No. 3, RTC, who is a hirer of the bus, filed the counter stating that it is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Considering claim, counters and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that there was 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling and 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondent No.1 & 2 jointly and severally while dismissing the claim as against the respondent No. 3, RTC.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling, without there being any evidence adduced either by the owner or by the Insurance Company. As regards the quantum of compensation, it has been contended that the deceased is a skilled person as seen from Ex.A.8, original identity card issued by Jangaon Private Electrical Workers’ Association, which discloses the profession of the deceased as Electrician and therefore, the fixation of monthly income of the deceased by the tribunal at Rs.4,000/- is meagre and needs enhancement. It is further contended that as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , future prospects to the fixed income of the deceased at 40% needs to be added apart from Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 2, Insurance company, has contended that it is a case of head on collision and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the driver of the auto and the same needs no interferen