THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.188 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2014, dated 06.06.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of 1^st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sampath, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 06.04.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata lorry driver. It is contended that on 06.04.2013, the deceased along with his friend were proceeding to Huzurabad on Hero-Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-10-AG-8128 and when they reached near Thumanapally filter bed, the driver of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP-15-TB- 8995 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from rear and dashed to the deceased motorcycle from backside, as a result, the deceased and his friend fell down deceased fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2013 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle, wherein a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the lorry and made responsible for the accident. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the petitioners was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing Gumastha work at Rashee Seeds, Huzurabad. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition as against respondent No.1 (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissed as not pressed. The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 – Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that the driver of the offending Lorry Driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e., TATA Lorry bearing No.AP-15-TB-8995? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and against whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of

Rs.7,12,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioners/claimants, that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing Gumastha work at Rashee Seeds, Huzurabad, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accid