THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/claimant/petitioner under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1403 of 2017, dated 07.11.2019, seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of the death of Balla Bhagyamma (wife of petitioner), (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 13.04.2017.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.1403 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of M.V.Rules 1989, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Setwin bus. It is contended that on 13.04.2017, the deceased while returning to her home after completion of her duty. While the deceased was waiting at bus-stop, the offending Vehicle Setwin bus bearing No.AP-09-TA-2293, came in rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the deceased due to which she fell down and sustained serious fractures and died on the spot. The Police, have registered a case vide Crime No.92 of 2017, under Section 304¬A of IPC against driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Respondent No.1. The appellant/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal, was that petitioner lost his spouse due to the accident and there is no one to look after the family of the deceased and the petitioner has to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, both the respondent No.1-Driver of the offending Setwin bus; and respondent No.2-Owner of the Setwin bus remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 – United India Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the offending Setwin Bus driver did not drove the Setwin Bus in negligent manner and due to the deceased self negligence the said accident occurred and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant 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:

i) Whether the death of the deceased Balla Bhagyamma, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Setwin bus bearing No.AP09TA2293 driven by its driver?

ii) ) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so,to what extent and from whom ?

iii) To what relief ?

7. To prove the petitioner’s case, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. None examined on behalf of the respondents, however Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

8. 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.4,90,000/- along with interest @

6% per annum.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the date of accident and was doing House-keeping work in SBI and earning Rs.9,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the welfare of the family, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimant submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustai