HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 07.10.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.1223 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX 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 petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased was proceeding on 11.05.2010 at about 6:30 p.m., in an auto bearing No.AP-11-X-3757 from Abids towards Koti and when he reached near Siddartha Hotel Abids, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-174 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against their auto from behind, due to which the said auto got crushed between the buses bearing No.AP-10-Z-9970 and AP-28-Z-174. As a result, the auto driver received multiple injuries all over the body, and immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and that he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-RTC filed counter affidavit denying all the material averments with regard to the age, income of the deceased and the occurrence of accident. It is further contended by them that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-

174.

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

1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased,Vangooree Bala Muralidhar Rao @ V. Murali, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-3505) by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- as against the claim of Rs.14,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submission of Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

9. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a low compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- as against their claim of Rs.14,00,000/- and that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be very low, while the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded very less amounts under various heads and has failed to consider the transportation expenses, future prospects of the deceased. He therefore, prayed to enhance the amount of compensation by allowing this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and therefore, prayed to uphold the same.

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

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

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

3. To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:

a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. PW1 asserted that the deceased was aged about ‘35’ years and used to earn Rs.25,000/- as an auto driver and that he also used to do petty business, but no proof is filed in this regard. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 236, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. Though th