THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.697 of 2012, dated 16.10.2017, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death Sri Lakpathi, (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in accident occurred on 07.02.2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.697 of 2012 under Section 166(1)(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the lorry driver. It is contended that on 07.02.2012, the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 Motor Cycle bearing No.AP- 23-L-8522 and when he reached at the outskirts of Konayapalli Village, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-2475 had parked the lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and without switching on the parking lights or indictors. While, the deceased was proceeding on motor cycle, due to focus of opposite coming vehicles, the deceased went to the back side of the parked lorry and hit the stationed lorry, as a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle and seized the said lorry. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing business at Vemulawada temple by selling puffed rice (pelalu) and fried Bengal gram (putnalu). Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry and respondent No.2-driver of the lorry remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 – Reliance General 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 submitted that driver of the offending lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-2475 as well as the deceased who was rider Bajaj CT-100 motor cycle bearing No.AP-23-L-8522 both were not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicles were not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive 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 HAD occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-2475 driven by its driver/R.1?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so, what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. 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.6,70,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

7. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimants/petitioners on the ground that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 35 years and was doing business in selling the puffed rice and dried Bengal gram, thereby earning Rs.8,000/- per month and also doing agriculture, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed t