JUDGEMENT

1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order and decree dated 20.10.2016 in O.P.No.319 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The said O.P. filed by the petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one K. Gore Balaji (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondents/RTC before the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are children of the deceased. On 24.11.2015 at about 06:30 P.M., while the deceased and another person were going to Navipet, when they reached near Nehru Park Chowrastha, Nizamabad, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 763 driven in rash and negligent manner came in high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which, the accident occurred and the deceased fell down on the road, sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries, on the way to Hospital at Hyderabad. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.30 of 2015 against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 763 on the file of Traffic Police Station Nizamabad.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 54 years as on the date of the accident and was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month by doing mutton business. He was hale and healthy and contributing his earnings to the petitioners for maintenance of the family. Hence, the petitioners filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.

5. The respondents filed their written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the RTC bus.

Further, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them.

6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked.

7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the respondents.

8. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants/RTC. Despite service of notice, none appeared and there is no representation for respondents/petitioners.

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/RTC is that the Tribunal without proper evidence has awarded compensation, which is on higher side. It is also contended that without any income proof the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. Further, it is also contended that the Tribunal has granted higher amount under the conventional heads. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and decree.

10. Now point for determination is as follows: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as granted by the Tribunal?”

Point:-

11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. On behalf of petitioners, the wife of the deceased i.e., petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 reiterating contents of the claim petition and she deposed about the manner of the accident and death of the deceased. As P.W.1 is not eyewitness to the accident, she got examin