JUDGMENT :

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01.2014 passed in O.P.No.257 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Konuganti (Nookala) Padma (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.11.2009.

3(1) It is stated that petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2 and 3 are daughters and petitioner No.4 is the son of the deceased. On 24.11.2009 at 1.30 p.m. the deceased along with one Polepally Suresh was proceeding from Yellagiri towards Koyyalagudem on National Highway No.9 and at that time the car i.e. Hyundai Accent Car bearing No.AP-09-AP-444 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as such, the deceased and Polepally Suresh received injuries and the car fell into a road side ditch and the deceased was taken to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, where she died. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Panchayat Secretary and she was aged about 43 years and earning Rs.13,845/- per month. On a complaint, Police Choutuppal registered a case in Cr.No.320 of 2009 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the said car. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.1 died. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/Pruthvi Raj Chit Funds and Finance, filed a counter denying all the petition allegations. Their main contention is that they already sold the car to respondent No.3 much before the accident and that the car was insured with respondent No.4, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Respondent No.3 remained ex parte. Respondent No.4/Insurance Company filed a counter denying all the petition allegations.

6. To prove their case, petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the 4th respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 copy of the policy was marked.

7. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.8,55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter-alia contended that the Tribunal failed to consider oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A8 and Tribunal erroneously determined earnings of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and that the Tribunal did not grant compensation amount under conventional heads as per the judgments of Apex Court. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and no interference is required from this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11. There is no dispute with regard to the involvement of a motor vehicle and the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition and the issue in this regard which was decided in the favour of the appellants/claimants is not challenged, thus attained finality.

12. The main contention of petitioners is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence available on record with regard to the income of the deceased. In support of their contention, they got examined PW.1 and he deposed that the deceased was working as a Panchayat Secretary and was getting a salary of Rs.13,465/- as per Ex.A8-salary certificate. As per the evidence of PW.3-M.P.D.O., the deceased worked under her since 2003 in M.P.D.O. Office, Choutuppal and wa