IMPORTANT POINT
The court determined compensation based on the deceased's age and income, emphasizing reliance on documentary evidence and established legal principles in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P. No. 1219 of 2017, dated 19.11.2018, the claim petitioners therein filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased-Laxminarayana, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 18 % per annum on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.04.2017. As stated by the petitioners, on 01.04.2017 at about 6.50 p.m., when the deceased-Kandula Laxminarayana was proceeding towards Bhongir side from Hanumakonda, and while crossing the road, an Auto bearing No. TS-07-UC-0361, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, while overtaking a Cyclist, went to the extreme right side of the road and the bag which was being carried by the deceased, was locked with the right side rear view mirror of the Auto. As a result, the deceased fell down and he was dragged towards Hanumakonda side as the driver of the Auto was driving it more than 60 KM per hour speed and could not control it. The said Auto dragged the deceased for 10 metres. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple fractures, including head injury and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Aleru and from there, to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and the deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to Government Hospital, Secunderabad at about 8.00 PM. Police of Alair Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 48 of 2017 under Section 304-A IPC. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 49 years as on the date of accident and is a silk saree weaver and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner, love and affection and hence filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the respondents.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, who are the owner and driver of the Auto bearing No. TS-07-UC-0361, remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, occupation, earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, driver having valid driving license. It also denied that the subject Auto do not possess valid insurance policy as on the date of accident and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the rival contentions made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the death of the deceased-K. Laxminarayana was due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No. TS-07-UC-0361 driven by its driver?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whomo?

(iii) To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no witness was examined, however, Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance policy was marked.

8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the said compensation, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of the same.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal