THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MACMA No.3405 OF 2005

J U D G M E N T

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of M.V. ACT against the Order dated 04.11.2004 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.215 of 2003 by the learned Family Court Judge, at Secunderabad, (for short “the learned Trial Court”), the claim petitioners in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the parents and younger sister of the deceased, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.07.2003. The contention of the petitioners is that on 13.07.2003, at about 11.00 pm, when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP-9-C-4767 from Erragadda towards Kukatpally and when he reached Godrej X roads, an RTC hired bus bearing No.AP-28-V- 3813 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Based on the complaint, the Police, Kukatpally P.S. registered a case in Crime No.548 of 2003 under Section 304 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 remained ex- parte. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company Limited and TSRTC have filed their 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 submitted that deceased had no valid driving licence and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

“i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-28-V-3813 by its driver.

ii) What is the just amount that can be awarded as compensation and against whom.

iii) To what relief?”

6. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,08,000/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering Exs.A7 and A8 filed by the petitioners and in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- and assessing the compensation basing on the said income and assessed the compensation basing on the said income and awarded an amount of Rs.2,08,000/-. It is further contended that the learned trial Court did not consider the compensation under the conventional heads.

8. It is further contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years and was an employee of AIRTEL and also used to do Milk business by supplying milk to the residents and used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from Airtel office and Rs.3,000/- per month from Milk business.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. None appeared for respondent Nos.1.

11. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1

12. The main g