THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 05.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.799 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District 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 30.06.2015 at about 9:30 p.m., the deceased-Chimata Suresh Kumar was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-20-B-733 as pillion rider to Ramanagudem from Aswaraopet and when they reached the outskirts of Aswaraopet Village, the motor bike bearing No.AP-04-AU-3910 coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed the motor bike of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and received grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Aswaraopet, where he succumbed to injuries. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as a Diesel Mechanic in ITC Paper Mill and was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. They sought a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

4. The respondents No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motor bike on which the deceased was travelling.

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

1. Whether the deceased-Chimata Suresh Kumar died due to the injuries sustained by him in the road accident on 30.06.2015 due to the rash or negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP-04-AU-3910?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, from which respondent ?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,37,200/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and has taken the income of the deceased to be very low as Rs.6,000/- per month, while the evidence adduced proves that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under various heads and has also made a deduction of 50% which is bad in law. He further submitted that the Tribunal has granted only 7% per annum as interest, while the Courts are granting 7.5% per annum.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that no proof of income and avocation was filed before the Tribunal and that with regard to loss of consortium, the principles laid down by the Apex Court may be considered.

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

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

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

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) The grievance of the appellants is that the Tribunal has awarded very low amount of compensation.