HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.264 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. Pallati Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for appellants-

claimants and Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel representing Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

insurance company.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the order and decree dated 19.04.2022 in MVOP No.2830 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) and seeking to enhance the compensation amount.

3. The appellants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased-B.Krishna filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 08.05.2016 at about 16.00 hours while the deceased was proceeding towards Damaragidda village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-DP-0486. When the deceased reached near Jagigutta Gate, Ibrahimpally village, Chevalla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, one Piaggio Goods Auto bearing registration No.TS-06-UA-2636 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) came in rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over it and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to injuries.

3.1. The Police, Chevella Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.82/2016 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet.

3.2. The appellants/claimants claimed that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a labour-cum-labour contractor and contributing the same to his family members. Due to sudden death of deceased, the appellants/claimants lost their source of income.

4. The respondent No.1 i.e., owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte.

5. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, and further averred that the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, has categorically held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.15,03,856/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fastened the liability on the respondents jointly and severally and assailing the same, the appellants/claimants have filed this Appeal for enhancement of compensation.

7. The main contention of the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the earnings of the deceased and though the appellants/claimants claimed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- as the deceased was labour-cum-labour contractor, the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the earnings at Rs.8,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased though the dependents of the deceased are five members and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal failed to award consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very less and the same needs to be enhanced.

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 31, though they claimed the age of the deceased as 30 years, for computation of proper compensation. Perusal of the record, P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitte