HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 24.11.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (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 is that the deceased Peddi Kondaiah, was proceeding on his TVS XL Moped on 12.01.2018 at about 4.10 P.M., from his house to go to his agricultural field for Toddy Tapping and on the midway when he reached near the land of one Shaik Latheef at the outskirts of Narsimhuladugem Village, an auto rickshaw bearing No.TS-05-UA- 6130 came from Mothey side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the TVS XL Moped of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the wife and son of the deceased have filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition with regard to the income, avocation and age of the deceased and further contended that there was no negligence of the auto driver and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Respondent No.2 denied the issuance of policy to cover the liability in the present case.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred on 12.01.2018 at about 4.10 P.M. at the outskirts of Narsimhulagudem village of Munagala Mandal, Suryapet District due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-owner-driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing No.TS-05-UA-

6130?

2) Whether the Peddi Kondaiah died in the said accident?

3) Whether the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.TS-05-UA-6130 is owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent ?

4) Whether there are any violations of the policy conditions?

5) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from which of the respondents and what is the quantum of compensation?

6) To what relief and costs?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondents, Rw1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,57,982/- as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

8. Heard Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased to be very low and that it has awarded a meager amount towards compensation. He further submitted that the tribunal committed an error in fixing contributory negligence on the deceased for not wearing helmet. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the documents filed by them and awarded low amount under various heads and that the Tribunal has also failed to consider the future prospects. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and there is no need to interfere with the same. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order and decree of the tribunal.

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

1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? If so to what extent?

3. Whether the order and decree