THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

The dependants of one Mr. M.Satyanarayana, who died in a road accident and who herein after will be referred as ‘deceased’, having filed a petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘M.V. Act’) r/w Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules r/w Section 140(c) of M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, though their petition was partly allowed by the Tribunal granting an amount of Rs.23,22,680/-, filed this appeal and sought for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the tribunal failed to appreciate the income-tax returns marked as Exs.A7 and A10 and awarded a meager sum of compensation, thereby, prayed for enhancement.

2. As per the impugned judgment, it was the case of appellant herein that on 16-11-2007 at about 5.15 a.m., while he was proceeding to Secunderabad Railway Station on a motor-bike, the driver of a DCM Van which was coming in the opposite direction dashed his bike and due to the multiple injuries received in the accident, he died on the spot.

3. The appellants have claimed that the deceased was a businessman having established Hardware Technical Consultancy and he was earning Rs.3,05,967/- per annum, thereby, sought for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. To prove their claim, they have examined the Officials from the Income-Tax Department and filed the tax returns. The appellants have claimed that there was a failure by the tribunal in consideration of the tax returns and inappropriate amount was awarded. However, a perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that the tribunal having examined the oral evidence of the officials as well as the tax returns minutely, came to a conclusion that the evidence placed before the Court indicates that the deceased was earning Rs.16,968/- per month and having deducted 1/4^th of the income towards the personal expenditure of the deceased and having applied ‘15’ multiplier and also by awarding amounts under the other heads granted sum of Rs.23,22,680/-. Therefore, the appellants are not able to prove that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and awarded inappropriate compensation which requires to be enhanced, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.

________________________ SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU, J

5^th February, 2024.

PLV