THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.290 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”) .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on 28.04.2016 the deceased was going as a pillion rider along with one Balakrishna who was riding the motor bike bearing No.TS-06-EF- 0883 and while they were crossing the limits of Chennaram Village, near Sub-Station, the rider of the bike has driven it in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and fell on the road, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding head injuries and other grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Wanaparthy, and from there to SGR Hospital, Kurnool and from there to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, but he succumbed injuries on 07.05.2016. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the bike is insured with respondent No.2 and thus, in case if any compensation awarded by the Court, it is only the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay the same.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the rider of the motor bike did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended that the policy does not cover the risk of the pillion rider and hence, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

“1. Whether the accident occurred on 28.04.2016 at about

11:00 p.m., in the limits of Chennaram Village near Sub Station to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle motor cycle bearing No.TS-06-EF-0883?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount, from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,19,988/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Ms. Chandrika, learned counsel representing Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rama Krishna Mallojhala, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a photographer and that he used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- per month, but the tribunal has assessed the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and has awarded a low amount of compensation. He further argued that the Apex Court has held that Rs.4,500/- can be taken in the absence of any proof in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 236. He therefore, prayed to rely upon the said decision and assess the compensation of the deceased. He

further prayed to consider the loss of consortium, which was not awarded by the tribunal. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there was no proof of income filed before the tribunal and thus, the tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. He further submitted that the deceased was a Bachelor and thus, loss of consortiu