HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal– cum –II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal”) in O.P.No.869 of 2004 dated 21.08.2006, the petitioners/claimants filed the present Appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of deceased by name “Chinthala Srinu” (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased’). Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, Petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased and Petitioners No. 3 and 4 are parents of deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 23.08.2004, the deceased along with his relative by name one Kamalakar went to Mamunuru village on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP.24.G.2235 for

consuming Ayurvedic medicine and after that they returning back to their village on the said motorcycle and when they reached Illanda village, one auto trailer bearing registration No. AP-36-V-8683 (for brevity hereinafter called as ‘crime vehicle’) came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. Based on the complaint, a case in First Information Report No.123/2004 of Vardhannapet Police Station was registered for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code against driver of the crime vehicle, after investigation filed charge sheet. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was working as mason and used to earn Rs.4,500/-per month. It was stated that the petitioners were solely depending on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident the family suffered a lot and lost young earning member, his love and affection, leaving them in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependents of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) against both respondents jointly and severally.

5. The respondent No.1, did not choose to file counter. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, death, age, avocation and income of the deceased. On the above grounds, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the claim application.

6. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues.

i) Whether the deceased Chinthala@ Chinthcheruvu Sreenu died in the motor vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Auto Trailer bearing No.AP.36.V.8683?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, If so, to what amount?

iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of respondents none were examined, however, Ex. B-1 copy of Insurance Policy was marked. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,23,500/- (Rupees two Lakhs twenty three thousand five hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit jointly and severally by respondents No.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/petitioners is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs. A-1 to A-8, the learned