The assessment of compensation in motor accident claims must consider contributory negligence and actual earning capacity of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

(Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.)

Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the award dt.25.06.2014 in O.P. No.2406 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. In M.A.C.M.A No.3943 of 2014, the Appellants/petitioners have challenged the award being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the same. In M.A.C.M.A No.4264 of 2014, the Appellant/Insurance Company had challenged the Award and prayed to set aside the same.

3. For convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A No.3943 of 2014 are discussed hereunder, and the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 16/17.5.2010 at about 2.30 a.m. near Kharkana Secunderabad Main road, opposite G. Pulla Reddy Sweet Shop, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, the deceased A. Lova Raju was proceeding as a pillion rider and Markandeyulu was riding the Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.AP-10-T/R-1646 as they were returning from Macha Bollaram side towards Kharkhana side, and when they reached near G. Pulla Reddy Sweet shop, Karkhana, at the same time, the rider of the said Pulsar Motorcycle drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the road divider. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle, and the deceased sustained fatal injuries, and he succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. The Police of Karkhana have registered a case in Cr.No.96 of 2010 under Sections 304 and 337 IPC against the rider of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Whereas respondent No.2 filed a Written Statement denying the averments of the petition. They contended that the rider of the Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.AP-10-T/R-1646 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident, and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license. Further, he still needs to satisfy the requirements of Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. One can drive the motorcycle if he should have an MCWG license, but the rider of said Pulsar did not possess a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove their case, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B3.

7. After considering the claim and the Written Statement filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased @ 25% and remaining 75% on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, and allowed the O.P. partly awarding compensation of Rs.12,39,000/- and deducted 25% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased i.e. at Rs.3,09,750/- and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.9,29,250/- with interest at 7% per annum payable by the respondents jointly and severally was awarded to the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioners filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contende