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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2016, dated 09.09.2019, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.15,49,200/- 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.55 of 2016 under Section 166(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the Devi Venkaiah (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., Auto Bearing No.AP-15-TV-1796. On 10.09.2015, the deceased was returning to Mulkalla Village from Gudipet by walk and reached opposite to Vyshnavi Petrol Hub at Gudipet Town, Adilabad District, a vehicle bearing No.AP-15-TV-1796 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which he sustained severe injuries and was taken to Gandhi Hospital but he succumbed to injuries in the hospital while taking treatment on the same day. The Police, Hazipur registered crime No.96 of 2015 against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was hale and healthy and working as Village Sunkari and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month, which he used to contribute the same for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their dependency and further contended that deceased was only bread winner of their family. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 2 – Owner of the Crime Vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 – Reliance 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 the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. 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 occurred resulting in death to the victim viz. Sri Devi Venkaiah, S/o.Sri Pedda Lingaiah due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TV 1796 ?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum ?

(3) To what relief ?”

7. 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 in part and granted compensation of Rs.15,49,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid license to drive the vehicle. It is further contended that except the statement of PW.3, no documentary evidence was filed to show that the deceased used to work as Village Sunkari and was earning Rs.10,000/-

p.m., however, the Tribunal without any document evidence taken the income of the deceased Rs.9,000/- per month which is highly excessive and further submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously added 30% towards future prospects of the deceased, as the deceased was 45 years as on the date of the accident and the Tribunal ought to