Compensation claims for accidents prior to the repeal of Section 163-A are governed by the original provisions, and while beneficial legislation aims to support claimants, awards must remain reasonable and equitable.

JUDGMENT :

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Since these appeals arise out of the same accident, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA Nos.468 of 2024 and respondent No.2 in MACMA No.1422 of 2024 and Sri P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.1422 of 2024 and respondent No.1 in MACMA No.468 of 2024 and perused the record.

3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in MVOP Nos.2258 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad dated 03.05.2023.

4. The facts leading to filing of the above MVOP are that on 31.01.2017, at about 21.40 hours, the deceased, late V.Rajesh, was crossing the road at Shabaresh Hotel near Word and Deed School on NH 65 Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District and the driver of lorry bearing No.TS 05 UB 0117 while proceeding from Vijayawada to Hyderabad, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed towards the deceased who died on the spot due to grievous injuries. A crime was registered vide Crime No. 102/2017 in Hayathnagar Police Station. The deceased being a cook and doing catering business was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month prior to his death and he used to contribute the same to the welfare of the family.

5. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the accident vehicle and remained ex parte.

6. The respondent No.2, Insurance Company, filed counter-affidavit denying the material allegations leveled in the claim petition including manner of accident, death of the deceased, his age and income by the time of the death and registration of the case against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is further alleged by the respondent No.2 that the deceased had not died in a road traffic accident, but was killed by Mohammed Nadeem and four others and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. As such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues for consideration in the MVOP:

“1. Whether the death of the deceased Vadthya Rajesh was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.TS 05 UB 0117 driven by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what extent and against whom?

3. To what relief?”

8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants-appellant, PW.1 was examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.

9. The learned Tribunal, considering various issues on record and taking into account of the eligibility criteria, awarded an amount of Rs.15,10,000/- towards compensation, under various heads to the appellant/claimants along with 6% interest per annum.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company approached this Court by filing MACMA No.468 of 2024 and the appellant/claimant filed MACMA No.1422 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the same.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- along with 6% interest per annum, against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- instead of dismissing the claim petition, since accused No.1 Mohammad Nadeem and four others chased the deceased to kill him and the deceased to save himself ran without observing the lorry. Due to his negligen