IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation claims require substantial evidence of income and proper assessment of dependents to determine liability and amounts.

JUDGMENT :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1042 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge-II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

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

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

On 27.08.2017, at about 06:00 hours, the deceased-Chinthala Gattaiah, left from his house at Jangaon on a Taxi bearing No.TS-08-UA-9952 to Phanigiri, Nagaram Mandal, Thirumalagiri District, to attend a function along with his son, Chinthala Ashok and son-in-law Shakapuram Samaiah and one Chintala Srihari. After attending the function, they returned to Jangaon, where they reached C.S.I. Hostel at the outskirts of Phanigiri village, the driver of the said Car, Shakapuram Ganesh, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a tree, resultantly, they fell down on the road. The deceased sustained grievous injuries, and the other inmates also received simple and grievous injuries. After administering first aid at Thirumalagiri, on the doctor’s advice, the deceased was shifted from Thirumalagiri Government Hospital to Government Area Hospital at Jangaon for better treatment. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 27.08.2017 at about 8:30 P.M. at the Government Area Hospital at Jangaon.

4. Based on the complaint given by one Gandamalla Shoban Babu, VRA of Phanigir, the police Nagaram registered a case in Cr.No.36 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Later, on coming to know about the death of the deceased, the police altered the section of law from Section 337 IPC to Section 304-A IPC. Therefore, the petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the deceased’s death.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent failed to file counter, as such, forfeited the right to file counter. Respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the claim petition.

7. PWs.1 and 2 were examined to prove the petitioners’ case, and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1-Copy of the Insurance Policy was marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by granting a sum of Rs.59,30,000/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh Thirty Thousand Only) with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Though the claim petition was filed only for Rs.25,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.59,30,000/-. Challenging the same, respondent No.3/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

9. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Y.Swaroop Sai, learned counsel representing Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that except filing Ex.A-7-original license of Fast Food Tiffin Centre, and Ex.A-8-Partnership Deed pertaining to Shakapuram Sambaiah and the deceased, no other oral or documentary evidence was produced to show that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, including salary and 50% of the profits. There is no whisper, either in the pleadings or in the evidence of the petitioners, that the deceased and Shakapuram Sambaiah have started the business and are running the business as on the date of the accident.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken Rs.40,000/- per month as the deceased’s income, without any val