JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.08.2000 passed in O.P.No.42 of 1994 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda, (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the injured Linga Venkanna filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.11.1993. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the injured Venkanna died, and his legal representatives, who are petitioners Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record.

3(1) It is stated that on 17.11.1993 during evening hours, the original petitioner went to Suryapet town to purchase Kirana provisions. After purchasing the same, he reached Suryapet new bus stand on N.H.9 road at about 2200 hours, and while he was going on his cycle, a car bearing No.AP-16-3434 came from Vijayawada side, in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and dashed against the injured. Consequently, the injured fell down and sustained a serious head injury and fractures over his right hand. One Shaik Kashim, who at was the spot along with others, shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Suryapet. It is further stated that the injured became man of un-sound mind due to the accident. He was shifted to OGH for further treatment. Venkanna died on account of injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was set ex parte, and respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter by denying all the petition allegations.

5. To prove their case, petitioners examined 3rd petitioner as PW.1 and the eyewitness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.61,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s inter- alia contended that this is a case of injury, but due to injuries, the original petitioner (injured) died after one year. So, this case has to be treated as a case of death, but the Tribunal did not consider the same and wrongly awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.11,000/- towards unsound mind. In support of his case, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afsana and others Vs. Kundu Knit Fab Pvt. Ltd., and another1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“Accident – Nexus between injuries and death – Injured became quadriplegic due to injuries suffered in road accident and died after one year – Legal heirs after his death filed an application for amendment of claim application but Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that death was not on account of injuries suffered in accident – High Court affirmed Tribunal’s finding – Testimony of doctor that injured was hospitalised for more than 3 months and remained under treatment for a very long time – Death of a person confined to bed and suffering from

1 2022 ACJ 754

quadriplegia cannot be due to any other reason but on account of injuries suffered by him – Whether there was nexus between accidental injuries and death of the deceased – Held: Yes.”

5. Before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, legal heirs of Afsar Ali argued that the income of the deceased was assessed as a daily wager at Rs. 2400/- per month. The High Court has enhanced the compensation by applying a multiplier of 17 instead of 11 applied by the Tribunal. The High Court assessed the compensation as Rs. 4,76,400/- including compensation under the conventional heads.

6. It is argued that in view o