HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2019

JUDGMENT

The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 06.09.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT)-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.236 of 2012 (Old No. 622 of 2010), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,43,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellants as against their claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, for the death of deceased Mr. Gandam Anil Kumar, who is the husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and son of appellant Nos.4 and 5, in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation in this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2008, at around 9:00 PM, the deceased, Mr. Gandam Anil Kumar, along with his student was proceeding on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-22-F-9260 towards Shadnagar from Mahabubnagar and when they reached the limits of Polepally Village on NH-7, a lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-6704 came in the opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. The police, Jadcherla registered a criminal case vide Crime No.47 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. Stating that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and employed in Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Vocational Junior College, Shadnagar, as LDC, drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, the appellants-claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, against respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insruance company filed a detailed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.12,43,000/- in favour of the appellants- claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants primarily contended that even though the appellants-claimants pleaded that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the deceased income as Rs.6,000/- per month and also failed to award adequate compensation under various heads. Thus, learned counsel prays for enhancement of the compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award of the Tribunal and contended that in the absence of service register, permanent appointment letter, or official confirmation of a regular post, the Tribunal rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

6. On a careful examination of the record, it is evident that even though the appellants-claimants relied on the salary certificate (Ex.A-12) and the testimony of P.W-3 (an employee of the college) to assert that the deceased earned Rs.10,000/- per month as LDC, the Tribunal has rightly raised serious doubts about Ex.A-12, such as it was not backed by the service register, and no summons/official records were produced from the college to verify permanent employment. Since it is true that claimants bear the burden of proof to establish the income/se