HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NOs.128 and 374 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

The appellants – claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, while M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), granting compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one T.Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the accident occurred on 04.04.2016.

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 04.04.2016, the deceased T.Raju was proceeding on his bike bearing No.AP 09 AQ 0445 from Ibrahimpatnam to Dandumailaram Village and when he reached near Gurunanak Engineering College, one Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 24 X – 0370 & AP 29 TB 3705 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the bike of the deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the petitioners have filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1/the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent No.3 who was the driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2/the insurer of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the material averments as to the occurrence of the accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bike rider and that there was no negligence of the tractor driver.

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

“1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on 04.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP24X – 0370 & AP-29TB 3705?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from whom?

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

4. To what relief?”

7. At the time of trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 while the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021.

9. Heard the submission of Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.20 Lakhs but has awarded less compensation and that the Tribunal failed to accept the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and has assessed a very low income of Rs.6,500/- and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and towards loss of consortium.

11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting compensation to the petitioners and that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased. He further contended that there is no rash and negligence of the tractor driver. He further contended that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4^th but the Tribunal has taken 1/5^th which is erroneous. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken only Rs.4,500/- per month towards earnings of the deceased but has wrongly assessed the income as Rs.6,500/- in the absence of any proof. He therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.