The court held that compensation for loss of dependency must accurately reflect the decedent's earning capacity and future prospects, leading to an enhancement of the awarded amount based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in O.P.No.1578 of 2014 passed by the MACT-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 06.01.2014, deceased A.Venkata Ramarao started from Sarathi Studios and was going towards Ameerpet by walk. At about 15.30 hours, auto bearing No.AP-09-TB-1544 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed to the deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous head injury and serious injuries all over the body and was shifted Axon Hospital, S.R.Nagar for treatment. Deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The case of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 49 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Manager in Classic Construction. They made a claim of Rs.25,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the issuance of policy and validity as on the date of the alleged accident and further denied all the averments in the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the deceased A.Venkata Ramarao S/o Late AVL Narasimha Rao died on 06.01.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP- 09-TB-1544?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, petitioner No.1 herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.9,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

9. Heard the submission of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has awarded meager compensation to the petitioners. He further argued that the Tribunal has taken the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is very low, that the deceased was working as a Manager in a construction company and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He further submitted that the consortium needs to be awarded to all the petitioners which the Tribunal has not awarded and therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that there is no error in the orders passed by the Tribunal and also contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any other amounts and further prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the quantum of compensatio