THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2444 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/petitioners filed the present appeal against the order and decree passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act – Cum – VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – Additional Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum - XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.46 of 2006, dated 19.03.2009.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of Ratnakar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 01.12.2005.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2005, the deceased and his wife were proceeding on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-AP-1487 towards Bachilipalli from Jeedimetla, when at about 5.00 P.M., one Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP-9-U- 5803, driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle from behind. As a result, the deceased and his wife fell down and received multiple injuries, and the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.265 of 2005 against the lorry driver for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. The petitioners claimed Rs.25,00,000/- for the above said accident, as compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was set ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter - denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was contended that the crime vehicle was not insured with the respondent’s insurance company and, that the compensation claimed was excessive, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A12 and Ex.X1 to X3. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2.

7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the OP in part and granted compensation of Rs.11,72,000/- in all with interest @

6 % from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased was a contract mechanic of a chilling plant of Laxmi Drugs/Porus Drugs & intermediates earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was also running a transport business and had 4 DCMs of his own bearing Nos.AIIT 6465, AP-12-T-2176, AP-9-W-1838 and AP- 28-V-3677 were getting Rs.20,000/- per month from the above vehicles. The deceased also had 24 Acres of agricultural land and raised paddy cotton, mirchi etc., and was getting an additional Rs.24,000/- per month. Thus, the total income of the deceased was Rs.49,000/- per month. The Tribunal, without considering the same, fixed the deceased’s total income at Rs.12,000/- per month, based on the ground that the petitioners had not produced the Income Certificate of the deceased from the competent authority. They also contended that the deceased’s income would vary depending upon the weather pests and other conditions. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under different heads;

and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

10. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

11. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final, as the respondents did not challenge the same.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners stated that the deceased was earning Rs.49,000/- per month by working as a contractor mechanic, running a transport business by having 4 DCMs and doing agriculture. Ex.A7, the