JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.09.2011 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P. No.239 of 2010, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 19.12.2024, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Sri R.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is no more. Hence, this Court appointed Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, who is the panel Advocate of respondent No.2-National Insurance Company and readily available in the Court, to appear on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Heard Sri Gurunam Singh, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Limited.

4. Brief facts of case:

On 13.03.2010 the deceased namely Veludandi Venkataiah was returning on his bicycle towards bus stand in Kagaznagar Town after purchasing curd and when he reached in front of Indian Oil Petrol Pump at about 15-00 hours, all of a sudden one lorry bearing No. AP.07.TT.1395 being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased from his back side, due to which, he fell down on the road, sustained severe injuries all over his body and while shifting to the hospital in 108 Ambulance, he died. On complaint, the Police, Kagaznagar Town registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as a milk vendor cum watchman in a private school. Thus, the appellant who is the wife of the deceased has filed O.P.No.239 of 2010 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the deceased was a milk vendor and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month apart from working as watchman in a private school. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards his personal expenses, awarded meager amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of dependency, apart from awarding Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs.75,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards cost of litigation, as per the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another, [2014 (5) ALD 42 SC] Therefore, the appellant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation under all heads.

Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed by her in this appeal.

8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the accident occurred on 13.03.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP.07.TT.1395. It is also not in dispute that at time of death, the deceased was aged 72 years and working as milk vendor and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is very less. Thus, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,000/- per month, deducted 1/3^rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and then the monthly contribution of the deceased comes to Rs.2,667/-. Since the dec