THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA NARSING RAO

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 Order and decree dated 30.10.2019 passed in O.P.No.1959 of 2015 by the II Additional Chief Judge-cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of 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 14.06.2015 at about 6.30 p.m the deceased and the petitioner No.1 were going on motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 AT 8377 towards Kapra side and when they reached near ice Factory, Eurtonguda, Malkajgiri, the Tata Indica car bearing No.TS 15 UA 3169 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and came in opposite direction from wrong side and dashed the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased and also the petitioner No.1 fell down from motorcycle and sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Kompally and she was treated as inpatient, while she was undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries on

22.07.2015.

4. It is further contended that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The police have registered a case in crime No.411 of 2015 under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, subsequently the same was altered into Section 304-A of IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of the said car. The deceased was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and used to contribute her entire earnings for the welfare of the family. However, due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered loss of dependence and mental agony and claimed Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3-Insurance company filed counter, denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and therefore there was a contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Further, the manner of the accident that took place was also denied and further contended that respondent No.1 never drew the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner, though admitting that the issuance of the policy in respect of the said offending vehicle and subsistence of the said insurance as on the date of the accident and that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not at all the dependent on the deceased and also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the death of the deceased G.Srilatha alias Dhanalaxmi, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica car bearing No.TS 15 UA 3169 driven by it driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove the petitioners’ case, petitioner No.1 himself examined as PW.1 and relied on Exs.A1 to A12. The petitioners also examined Pw.2 who is the Billing Executive of Balaji Hospital, where the deceased was treated. On behalf of the respondents-Insurance company examined Rw.1 and marked Ex.B.1. After hearing both the counsel and considering the entire material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata India car which was driven by the respondent No.1 and made him responsible for the said accident.

8. As far as computation of compensation amount, the Tribunal having gone into the material placed on record and after assessing the compensation basing on the income of the deceased have came to conclusion that the petitioners were entitled for the total amount of Rs.16,43,958/- against the respondents.

9. Being aggrieve