HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.615 of 2017 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Prl. District Judge, Khammam (for short “the trial Court”).

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 04.09.2016 at about 5:45 a.m., the deceased was hit by a Lorry bearing No.AP-20-W-3037 near KCHP Bunker at Manuguru, due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the said lorry as a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and died. The wife and children of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.21,00,000/-.

4) The respondent No.1-driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte.

5) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further denied the occurrence of the accident and have denied their liability to pay compensation contending that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident.

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

1) Whether the accident is occurred on 04.09.2016 was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-

20-W-3037 as pleaded by the petitioners?

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

3) T o what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.26,70,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has completely erred in quantification of compensation and that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioners have not filed any proof with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW2 and the Salary Certificate filed under Ex.A6, but still has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month, which is highly excessive. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the employer is examined as PW2 in this case and that basing on the oral evidence of PW2 itself, the Court can assess the income of the deceased and that the Tribunal has taken only Rs.20,000/- while the evidence of PW2 is to the effect that the deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month and that even as per Ex.A6, the salary of the deceased is Rs.25,000/- per month and he prayed to enhance the compensation by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-.

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 trial Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) It is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased used to work as a Senior Clerk/Supervisor in Shiva Parvathi Coal Transport, Manuguru and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. They got examined PW2 to prove the earnings of the deceased. PW2 is the Proprietor of Shiva Parvathi Coal Transport Company, his evidence reveals that the deceased was working as Senior Clerk in their Transport