HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. S.Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for insurance company and Mr. T.Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the owner of the crime vehicle in both the appeals.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.302 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the insurance company and M.A.C.M.A.No.540 of 2022 is an appeal by the claimants. Considering the fact that the two appeals arises out of the same award between the same parties arising out of the same accident, this Court felt to decide the two appeals together and accordingly, the common order is passed hereto.

3. The facts of the case are that the parents and sister of the deceased-P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle fatal accident, have filed the MVOP No.2245 of 2015 filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

4. The brief facts are that on 28.11.2014, when the deceased along with one Narannagari Bhagavath Reddy went to observe digging of bore-well, the driver of the bore-well lorry bearing No.AP-29-BT-2829 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) while taking the vehicle reverse, drove it in rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and got crushed under the vehicle and died on the spot.

4.1. The Police, Kowdipally Police Station had registered a case in Crime No.156/2014 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and took up investigation.

5. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident and pursuing II year Intermediate Course and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month by doing Plumbing work as part-time job and contributing his earnings to the claimants and thereby due to the fatal accident they lost their son, who was the only hope to lead their life.

6. The respondent/insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also denied the manner of occurrence of accident, the age and income of the deceased and disputed the claim of claimants.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues:

i) Whether the death of the deceased-P.Chandrasekhar Reddy was due to rash and negligent driving of Bore Compressor lorry bearing No.AP-29-BT-2829 driven by its driver ?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?

iii) To what relief ?

8. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants have examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-

policy was marked.

9. The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, held that the accident took place on 28.11.2014 due to negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle and the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to the said accident and awarded compensation of Rs.8,33,000/- by fastening the liability on the driver, owner of the crime vehicle and insurance company as jointly and severally.

10. The primary ground of challenge by the insurance company in MACMA No.302 of 2022 was to the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the crime vehicle, in which the deceased died and secondly disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

11. The claimants filed MACMA No.540 of 2022 seeking for enhancement of compensation. The main contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal has not awarded the just and fair compensation as per the recent judgments of Hon‘ble Apex Court and this Court. It is contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and also erred in not awarding consortium to all the