THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and decree passed by the XIV Addl.Chief Judge(FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.P.No.2344 of 2012, dated 11.09.2019, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.19,00,457/- to the respondents/claimants herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.2344 of 2012 under Section 166(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the B.Dasarath Reddy (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Sawaraj Mazda

4. On 08.04.2012, the deceased was returning on his Koukuntla on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-AP-698 from Chevella and when he reached Chintterupally gate, the driver of offending vehicle Sawraj Mazda bearing No.AP-29-V-0065, drove in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous head injury and other injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.47 of 2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of IPC. Due to the said accident, the claimants suffered mental agony, financial problems, lost love and affection and future income source of the deceased, as the claimants were dependent upon deceased. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

5. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and was hale and healthy and working as agriculturist and doing real estate business and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, which he used to contribute the same for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimant No.1 lost her husband and claimant No.3 who is son of the deceased lost their father and all the claimants lost their conjugal happiness and lost deceased’s company and there is no other person to take care of the claimants and the petitioners lost their dependency.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Driver of offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased and denied that the crime vehicle was insured by the insurance company and also denied that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle and the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

“1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, B.Dasarath Reddy, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor vehicle (Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No.AP-29-V-0065) by its driver?

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

8. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and come to conclusion that the claimants would be entitled for an compensation award of Rs.19,00,457/- along with interest @ 8 % per annum.

9. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, th