HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 19.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.68 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 14.11.2014 the deceased was returning from his agricultural fields by walk and when he reached near Guntur Camp of Paidimal Village at about 10:30 p.m., one Tractor bearing No.TS-16-ATR- 7792 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the deceased from behind and the tractor turned turtle, fell on the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid driving license and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No.TS-6-A-TR-7792 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 got examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.16,82,800/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence. He further argued that the Tribunal has committed error in quantification of compensation and that it has come to a wrong conclusion with regard to the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.4,500/- as notional income of the deceased, but the Tribunal has taken the income to be Rs.8,000/- per month which is very excessive. He further argued that the future prospects also cannot be taken into consideration as there is no fixed income to the deceased and the Tribunal ought to have awarded only 6% interest instead of 7.5%.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. He further submitted that with regard to consortium, the Tribunal failed to consider the legal principles and therefore, prayed to enhance the said amount.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1 :-

a) The case of the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted huge compensation by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,000/- per month in the absence of any proof filed by them. It is asserted by PW1 that her husband used to earn around Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture. No proof is filed in this regard. The deceased was aged about 35 years as per the PME report under Ex.A4. He was running a family of six persons i.e., his wife, three children and parents. It is asserted by PW1 that he was quite hale and healthy prior to the accident. C