The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, emphasizing proper assessment of the deceased's earnings and clear evidence of negligent driving.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy, in MVOP No. 224 of 2017 dated 05.08.2021.

2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.O.P. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents.

3.1 Petitioners have filed MVOP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum under different heads for the death of the deceased-Sonai Mohan.

3.2 Petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother, petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is the sister of Sonai Mohan.

3.3 On 21.03.2016, Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai Preethi (petitioner No.4) were proceeding from Patancheru towards Andole village on a motor bike bearing No.TS-EF-7295 as petitioner No.4 has to appear SSC exam. Sonai Mohan was riding the motor cycle in a moderate speed, at about 08.00 a.m., when they reached the limits of Choutakur village meanwhile one lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935 came in opposite direction driver by its driver [respondent No.1] in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the bike. Due to which Sonai Mohan and Sonai Preethi received severe injuries, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Sanga Reddy from there Sonai Mohan was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 21.03.2016 at 04.00 p.m.

3.4 A case in Crime No.28 of 2016 was registered at Pulkal Police Station against the driver of the crime vehicle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the registered owner the crime vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.3-insurance company. The deceased Sonai Mohan was hale and healthy at the time of accident (21.03.2016), was a private employee, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, contributing the same to the family and was aged about 20 years. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have lost their son and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have lost their brother, his love and affection and prayed to allow the O.P.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident and he has not satisfied the requirement of Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Respondent No.2-owner of the lorry breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent No.3 denied the age, occupation, income and health condition of the deceased. Further stated that the claim is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the death of deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, also examined PW2 [Dayanand], got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent No.3 did not adduce any evidence and got mark Ex.B1-policy.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence let in by the petitioners has partly allowed the O.P by awarding an amount of Rs.9,37,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition [29.06.2017] till the date of realization, holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The above said amount was apportioned and petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are p