THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31.12.2019 in O.P.No.543 of 2017 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 26.09.2015, the deceased K. Sharath Babu was going by walk near Sahyadri Engineering College, when a car bearing No.KA-51-P- 6635 came from Mangalore side at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Indian Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. It is the case that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 45 years and was working as a lorry driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petitioner with regard to occurrence of the accident, the age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that there was no negligence of the car driver.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on

26.09.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No.KA-51-P-6635?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and whether the respondents are liable for the compensation, if so to what extent?

3. Whether the policy is in force at the time of accident?

4. To what relief ?

7. At the time of trial, petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.17. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.13,30,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 31.12.2019, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

9. Heard Ms. B. Roja Ramani, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them and that it failed to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month and has taken meager amount of Rs.8,000/- towards earnings of the deceased. She further argued that the Tribunal failed to grant consortium to petitioner Nos.2 to 5 who are the children of the deceased.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and that there is no need to enhance the compensation and therefore prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal

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

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) It is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was working as a lorry driver earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In support of their case petitioners have filed Ex.A.14/income certificate issued by the Director of Little Gems Vidyasram, Ponnur stating that the deceased used to work as a driver of their school and that the deceased was possessing HMV driving license and that they were paying an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and also that his three children used to study in that school. Petitioners have also filed Exs.A.11 to A.13 showing that the deceased has passed 10^th class and studied intermediate at Dr.B.R.