THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 23.02.2006 passed in O.P.No.211 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, (for short, “the Tribunal”) seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 30.08.2000, the deceased and others were travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP-10-U-3900 and when the auto stopped, the deceased was getting down from the auto, the driver of the auto started the auto in a rash and negligent manner as a result, the deceased fell down and the auto ran over the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and she was died on 03.09.2000 while undergoing treatment. The Police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants/petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1- driver of the auto remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, file 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 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 learned counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the deceased died in the accident occurred on 30- 8-2000 due to rash ad negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-10-U-3900?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation?

iii) To what relief

6. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1- Driving Licence was marked on behalf of Respondent No.2.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved with the Award compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners/appellants, who are the husband and daughter of the deceased, filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the deceased and the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and the petitioner claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by doing labour work. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-, however the same was rounded off to Rs.1,50,000/- in all, therefore, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

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

10. Heard both sides and perused the record.

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 which would arouse before this Court in this appeal is that:

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