HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the learned VII Additional District Judge, Khammam, in M.A.T.O.P.No.106 of 2017, dated 09.11.2017, the petitioners in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation amount.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife, children and parents of Late Sri Subhan Pasha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.12.2016. It is stated by the petitioners that on 11.12.2016, when the deceased was proceeding to Khammam on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 20L 4025 in order to attend mechanic work in his shop and when the vehicle passed near Venkatapuram Village, the driver of one RTC Bus bearing No. AP 24Z 0130, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed anddashed the motorcycle of the

deceased. As a result, the deceased’s motorcycle hit a tractor with force and he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. It is stated by the petitioners that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 30 years and was a motor cycle mechanic and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner and became destitute and hence filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents.

5. The respondent, Road Transport Corporation, filed a counter, denying the averments made in the claim petition including, involvement of the alleged vehicle at the time of the accident, mode and manner of accident, age, occupation, and earnings of the deceased and contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the insured and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP-20L-4025 as necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 6. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the accident took place on 11.12.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0130 by its driver?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondent, RW1 was examined.

8. After considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partlyallowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal.

9. Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and Ms.Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Road Transport Corporation(RTC).

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellants are that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased used to get monthly income @ Rs.15,000/- asa motor cycle mechanic. The Tribunal also erred in not added future prospects to the income of the deceased and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now the point that arises for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of t