HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 08.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2607 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the 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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 29.10.2018 while the deceased Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed was proceeding from Bainsha to Nirmal in an RTC bus bearing No.AP- 01Z-0041 as passenger and when the said bus reached the bus- stop of Eadgoan Chowk, Nirmal, the driver of the bus stopped the bus, but he immediately drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without observing the deceased, who was trying to get down the bus, due to which, the deceased fell down and received severe head injury and other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal and from there to Nizamabad and then to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment but he died on 01.11.2018 while undergoing treatment. The wife and children of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondents filed their counter denying all the averments in the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver but that the deceased himself was negligent while getting down the bus and that the deceased tried to get down from the running bus and thus fell down and sustained grievous injuries and submitted that there was no fault of the bus driver.

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

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 29.10.2018 occurred resulting in death of the deceased Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-01-Z-0041?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

8. Heard the submission of Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has not complied the latest guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court and that the Tribunal has grossly erred by granting meager compensation to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also awarded very meager amounts under various heads and therefore prayed to enhance the compensation by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has granted reasonable compensation and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. 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?

12. POINT NO.1:

a) Petitioners asserted that the deceased used to work as a mechanic and used to earn an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month but no proof is filed in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supre