THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (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 claimants before the Tribunal was that on 11.01.2015 at about 22:20 hours when the deceased-B.Prem Singh was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No.AP-29-BR-2443 from Shantinagar to his residence at Boduppal, the crime vehicle-Tata Mini Tipper bearing No.AP-35-U-0176 driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, hit the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 43 years, working in GHMC, earning monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, they sought a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

6. The respondent No.3 also filed counter denying the manner in which the accident has occurred and further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident was occurred on 11.01.2015 at about 22:20 hours near Shanthinagar Bus Stop, Boduppal to Uppal Road due to rash and negligent driving of driver of TATA Mini Tipper No.AP-35-U-0176?

2. Whether the accident vehicle is covered by Insurance?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount, from which respondents?

3. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the principles laid down by the Apex Court in determining the compensation and has arrived at a meagre compensation. He further argued that the deceased was an Employee of GHMC and that inspite of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal failed to consider the same. He further submitted that the Tribunal also has not taken future prospects into consideration and further has awarded meagre amounts under various heads. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has given a reasoned order and that the petitioners failed to prove the Salary of the deceased and therefore, he prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal.

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

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. If so, to what extent?

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

3. To what relief? 14. Point No.1:

a) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased used to work as an Employee in GHMC and used to earn Rs.10,160/- per month. In support of their case, they got examined PW3/Satish Kumar who is the Supervisor under Srinivasa Enterprises in the GHMC Parking Yard at Kavadiguda and that the deceased-B. Prem Singh was working as Driver in the Transport Section at Kavadiguda and that he was drawing a net salary