The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence, enhanced compensation to Rs.19,92,000, and clarified the assessment of loss of dependency and consortium for all dependents.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

The appellants – claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.197 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, while M.A.C.M.A.No.688 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.03.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1034 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), granting compensation of Rs.19,60,000/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one P.Bheemeshwar Goud (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the motor accident occurred on 16.05.2013.

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 16.05.2013 at about 09.00 AM, the deceased was proceeding on the road by walk and when the deceased reached Kanakadurga temple, Dilsukhnagar, a Mahendra Bolero Van bearing No.AP28TB- 6770 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is their case that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as a driver and therefore, they have filed a claim petition seeking Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and that while crossing the road, he fell down on the road and as such, the accident occurred. It is further contended by respondent No.2/Insurance Company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero Van and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. They further denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the deceased Bheemeshwar Gupta died in the motor accident with the Mahindra Bolero van bearing No.AP 28 TB 6770?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. At the time of trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.19,60,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition to till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred MACMA No.197 of 2021 while the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.688 of 2021.

8. Heard the submission of Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

9. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly granted less compensation towards consortium and that amounts towards funeral expenses and loss of estate are also awarded very low and that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier as ‘14’ instead of ‘15’ and thus, prayed to enhance the compensation. He further prayed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation to claimant No.4 who died during the pendency of the case and that though they have filed a memo dated 28.06.2017 along with the death certificate stating that claimant No.4 died during the pendency, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and failed to consider that LRs of deceased are the claimant Nos.1 to 3 herein. He prayed to allocate the share of claimant No.4 in favour of claimant Nos.1 to 3.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held the insurance company to be liable in paying the compensation and he further contended that PW2 is planted as an eye witness in this case and that the same