HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) M.A.C.M.A.No.2508 of 2017 is filed by the appellant/wife of the deceased, who is respondent no.5 in M.V.O.P.No.589 of 2010, challenging the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, MACT)

for non-awarding of compensation to her.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.129 of 2020 is filed by the appellant/mother of the deceased, who is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.589 of 2010, challenging the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the MACT seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Since both the appeals are arising out of M.V.O.P.NO.589 of 2010, dated 16.05.2017 passed by the MACT, the same are taken up and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, MACT No.129 of 2020 is taken up as the lead case so far as the facts are concerned.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the above appeals are as under:

5. On 17.10.2008 at 3.30 a.m., the deceased, mother of the deceased and the family were travelling to Tirupathi in a Car bearing registration NO.AP-27-U-7408 and when they reached Heritage Milk Dairy, Nandyal- Allagadda road, Nandyal, the driver of the Car dashed the stationary lorry bearing registration No.AP- 09-BL-3222 from behind. The said lorry was parked without any stopping indications. As a result, the Car was completely damaged and Car Driver and the son of the claimant died on the spot. The Police, Nandyal Police Station registered a crime No.250/2008 under Section 304-A of IPC.

6. The claimant i.e., mother, filed claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

7. The deceased was aged 31 years as on the date of the accident, hale and healthy and doing business in the name and style of M/s.Liberty Motors dealing with sales and services of automobile parts and used to earn more than Rs.2,75,000/- per annum and was spending the same for the maintenance of claimant and his family. Respondent no.1 is the lorry driver, respondent no.2 is the insurance company of the lorry, respondent no.3 is the car owner, respondent no.4 is the insurance company of the car and the wife of the deceased, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 alleging non-cooperation for filing O.P.

8. The respondent no.1 remained ex parte and the claim petition against respondent no.4 was dismissed. Respondent nos.2 and 3 contested the case by filing the counters. Respondent no.5 did not file any counter though made appearance through advocate, however, examined herself as RW.2.

9. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent-insurance company, Senior Executive of the respondent no.2 was examined as RW.1 and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. Respondent no.5 herself examined as R.W.2 and Ex.B2-medical certificate issued by Omega Hospital was marked on her behalf.

10. Considering the pleadings and material placed on record, the MACT awarded compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased under the following heads.

11. The MACT also awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally and claim petition against respondent no.4 was already dismissed as well as against respondent no.5 who is the wife of deceased. The MACT directed that entire compensation amount to be paid to the claimant i.e., mother of th