Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must adhere to a structured formula without requiring proof of negligence, with insurance liability confirmed even if the driver lacks a valid license.

JUDGMENT :

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by thelearned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter "Tribunal" for brevity) in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2012 by order and decree dated 19.12.2017, the appellants/petitioners have filed the present appeal seekingenhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed the claim petition under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the deceased by name A.Lachaiah @ Devadas. Appellant No.1 is the wife and appellantNo.2 is the daughter of the deceased. On 31.10.2009, the deceased went to Vengalapet Village to attend the 21^st day function of his relatives and after the said function while he was returning to Nancherla Village on his cycle; and when he reached at the outskirts of Vengalapet at 7:30 Р.М., R&B road culvert, respondent No.1 drove his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP-36-L-8462 (hereinafter ‘crime vehicle' for brevity) in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the cycle of the deceased; as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on head and face and died on the spot. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, holding the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable for the same and respondent No.3-Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants/petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Heard Sri A.Mahboob Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased realistically and on a higher side and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation along with future prospects considering the age of the deceased and also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the principle of 'Pay and Recover' and prayed to allow the appeal by granting just and reasonable compensation.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased, and awarded just and reasonable compensation and rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. Therefore, in the impugned order and decree, interference of this Court is unwarranted.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for interference by this Court? If so, whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation?

7. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 has not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the appellants and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the occurrence and the