THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the petitioners/claimants under Section

173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.P.No.156 of 2011, dated 21.06.2013, seeking compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of the death of Bodanapally Swamy Nath Reddy @ Sai Nath Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 04.12.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed O.P.No.156 of 2011 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 & Rule 455 of M.V.Rules, 1989 r/w Sec.140 of 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 Tipper bearing registration No.AP-23-U-4455. It is contended that on 04.12.2010, the deceased was riding Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.AP-31-AP-2713 and when the deceased reached Quthubullapur, the driver of the Tipper bearing No.AP-23-U-4455 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dash the deceased’s motorcycle, due to which the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the Tipper and made him responsible for the accident. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the appellants/petitioners before the Tribunal was that, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a Driver in Reddy’s Polymers Proceedings Limited, Hyderabad. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to pain and mental agony and petitioners lost financial support. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- from the respondents.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.1 & 2 filed counter- affidavits, 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 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 deceased by name Bodanapally Swamynath Reddy died in accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper bearing No.AP.23.U.4455?

ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners, the wife of the deceased i.e, petitioner No.1 herself examined as P.W.1. PW.2 & Pw.3 were also examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of appellants. On behalf of the respondents, none examined. Ex.B1-

Insurane Policy was marked.

7. After going into the merits and considering the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper driver and awarded compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed among the other grounds that the learned Tribunal did not consider the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month as per Ex.A6-Salalry Certificate and further that petitioner have proved that the salary of the deceased by examining PW.2-H.R.Executive in Reddy’s Polymers Processing Limited and further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not added prospects to the monthly income of the deceased as per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹ and further contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

9. Learned