JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the award and decree, dated 18.04.2016 passed in O.P.No.1479 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short (cid:147)the Tribunal(cid:148)), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one N.Balya (hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)the deceased(cid:148)), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.03.2013. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was traveling in Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 23 X 3930 along with Tomato load, when the said auto trolley reached at Gandimaisamma X Roads, one auto Trolley bearing No.AP 28 TV 0616 owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.2, being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the said auto in which the deceased was travelling, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 30 years, and he was a farmer and milk vendor and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their breadwinner and love and affection. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation under different heads.

4. Before the tribunal, while the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 remained ex parte, the insurance company, respondent No.2, filed counter denying the averments of the petition, in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether the deceased died in the accident on

11.03.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto bearing no.AP 28 TV 0616.

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if, so, to what quantum and to whom such quantum is recoverable?

iii) What relief?

6. Considering the claim of the appellants, counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part, awarding a total compensation of Rs.8,37,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, which made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

Perused the material available on record.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that even though they have proved the case by examining PW.1 coupled with Ex.A2, Inquest report which discloses that the deceased is an agriculturist and also milk vendor and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has taken the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- and awarded meagre amount towards compensation and the same needs to be enhanced.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company has contended that the tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly awarded reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due t