THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.647 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 08.06.2013 at about 5:30 a.m., the deceased along with her family members and relatives were proceeding from Hyderabad towards Kaleshwaram side in a Tempo traveller bearing No.AP-29-T-3182 and when the vehicle reached the outskirts of Gagillapur near the petrol bunk, the driver of the tempo lost control over the vehicle as he has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against a lorry tanker bearing No.AP-28-X-4496 which was coming in the opposite direction and in the said accident, R. Balamani died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that his vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 and that in case if any compensation is awarded, it is only respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver did not possess a valid driving license. Thus, the company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that since, the accident occurred in the opposite direction, both the drivers would be equally responsible for the accident and thus, contributory negligence on behalf of the driver of the lorry tanker has to be considered.

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

“1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tempo Traveler bearing No.AP-29-T-3182 causing death of R.

Balamani?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the claimant got examined PW1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. A.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant was aged ‘63’ years and the Tribunal has taken a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month which is not just and proper and the tribunal has assessed the compensation based on the multiplier method and that it has given meager amounts towards funeral expenses and loss of love and affection which is not justified. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by following the multiplier method. He further prayed to consider the income of the deceased at least to be Rs.4,500/- per month.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the deceased was a lady, aged ‘65’ years and they have not filed any income and age proof. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly granted the compensation of Rs.65,000/- and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ?

3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1:-

a) The grievance of the appe