THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the judgment passed in OP.No.1838 of 2007, dated 28.04.2009 by the XXII Additional Chief Judge – cum - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Appellant No.1 is the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondents before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal appellant No.1 died, thereby appellant Nos.2 and 3 were brought on record as legal representatives of appellant No.1.

3.1 Appellant No.1 has filed a petition under Section 163-A of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased [A.Yadamma] in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 03.09.2007 at about 07.30 a.m.

3.2 On 03.09.2007 A.Yadamma was travelling in a Matadoor van No.AP-9W-5936 from Hyderabad to Basara and when it reached near Muppireddipally village limits, a lorry bearing No.AP-1T-2555 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van from opposite direction. As a result, A.Yadamma sustained grievous injures and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, but she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The deceased was rendering her help in domestic works and was contributing her services to the family, used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month and was aged about 60 years as on the date of accident. Due to sudden death of the deceased, appellant No.1 - petitioner has lost her services and hence prayed to award compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred, also denied the driving licence of the driver and the insurance coverage for the crime vehicle. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-1T-2555.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries on 03.09.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 9 1T 2555.

ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, from whom.

iii) To what relief.

7. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – Smt. G.Saritha and also examined PW3 - A.Prabhaker and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.2 did not led any evidence.

8. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence adduced by the appellant No.1 - petitioner coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, has partly allowed the O.P and awarded Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and probabilities of the case, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the O.P as prayed for instead of granting Rs.60,000/-, failed to see Exs.A1 to A6, the evidence adduced by appellant No.1 and also failed to consider the nominal income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila Halder¹

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. The present appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

12. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased (A.Yadamma) used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned

2024 LawSuit (SC) 1002

Tribunal came to a conclusion that appellant No.1 – petitioner did not file any document to prove the age of the deceased but the post mortem report under Ex.A4 shows the age of the deceased as 80 years and has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month and the