HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 03.02.2020 in O.P.No.5 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District, at L.B.Nagar (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 on 25.10.2015 at 10.00 A.M., the deceased was going to his work place at Q Mart Shopping Mall, Banjara Hills and near TV9 Head Office, a Setwin Bus bearing No.AP-09-Y-8799 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the deceased due to which he died. It is the case of the petitioners that that petitioner was aged about 20 years and was working as Sales Executive in Q-Mart Retail Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased and also the manner in which the accident occurred. It is further contended that the setwin buses are run under the Government sponsored schemes, the buses are run under certain terms and conditions and therefore respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a counter denying the averments of the petitioner with regard to the age and earnings of the deceased and they further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and there is no negligence of the bus driver.

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

1) Whether the death of the deceased was caused in MV Accident on account of rash and negligence of the driver of Setwin Bus bearing No.AP-09-Y-8799?

2) Whether the accident vehicle is covered by Insurance?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for comopensation, if so, to what extent and on whom?

4) To what relief?

8. At the time of trial, petitioners got examined as P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 & Ex.X.1. On behalf of the respondents R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

10. Heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court for determination of compensation and that the Tribunal has failed to award just compensation to the claimants. He further submitted that the deceased used to earn Rs.500/- per day and that the Tribunal failed to consider the same and also that the Tribunal failed to add amount towards future prospects of the deceased and therefore prayed to enhance the compensation.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that it is clear from the evidence of P.W.3 that the deceased worked for twenty five days in their Super Market and also submitted that there is no proof of income in support of petitioners contention and therefore prayed to uphold the order of the Tribunal.

13. 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 Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

14. POINT NO.1:

a) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was aged 20 years and working as Sales Executive in Q-Mart and earning Rs.500/- per day. In support of their contention they have examined P.W.3-the Senior Manager of Q-Mart and got m