Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 06-03-2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 06-03-2020 passed in M.V.O.P No. 9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to allow the petition to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants herein in pursuance of order pared in IA No. 1/2020 in MACMA 465/2020 dated 25/11/2020 in M V 0 P 9/2018 on the file of MACT-CUM -VIII Addl. District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam (Dt) and pass such other order

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P No.9/2018, dated 06.03.2020 ,on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole to the extent of rejecting their clime

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:-

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

1. As these two appeals arise out of order dated 06.03.2020 in MVOP No.9 of 2018, on the file of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. MACMA No.465 of 2020 was filed by APSRTC stating that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. Whereas MACMA No.426 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner seeking to enhance the compensation as the same is not inconsonance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi”¹2017 (16) SCC 680

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother Ankamma was coming back home in Rickshaw after fishing in Medapi Tank. When she reached Ganapavaram Cold Storage on Guntur-Kurnool Highway, offending RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP07Z 0311 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Rickshaw from behind. As a result of which the deceased died on the spot and two other persons sustained bleeding injuries. A case in Crime No.101 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the offending bus, on the file of Tripuranthakam Police Station. The petitioners are the children of the deceased. It was further case of the petitioner that the deceased was hale and healthy as on the date of accident and was earning an amount of RS.10,000/- per month by selling honey, fishing and also attending to coolie works. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their financial support, love and affection. It is further contended that as the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent/driver of the offending bus, the respondents are liable to pay compensation as claimed by them.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the sons of Yasurantam, where as the name of the husband of the deceased was mentioned as Y.Srinivasulu. It was further stated that as the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 left the company of the deceased and are living with their grandfather, they cannot be treated as dependents as such they is not liable to receive compensation. With the above pleadings, the respondent clai