THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.770 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 14.08.2018 at about 00:30 hours, the deceased and other passengers were going in an auto bearing No.AP-28-V-1433 from Izzath Nagar towards Sriram Nagar and when they reached near Aparna Towers, Madhapur, the driver of the auto did not notice a Lorry bearing No.AP-31-X-4127 which was stationed in the middle of the road during the night time and thus, dashed against it, as a result the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the decease. It is further contended that the driver of the auto did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1. “Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.21,94,960/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW2 has deposed that the auto driver could not observe the lorry as no precautions were observed by the lorry in parking it. No CDF is marked in this case to elicit the contributory negligence of the auto. He further argued that PW2 has clearly stated that the auto driver has dashed against the lorry without observing it. He further argued that no proof of earnings was filed by the petitioners and therefore, notional income of Rs.4,500/- ought to have taken by the tribunal, but the tribunal has awarded huge compensation. He further argued that the petitioners stated that the deceased was working as a painter, but no evidence is adduced in this regard. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that the deceased was divorced and he has to be treated as a bachelor and thus, 50% deduction has to be made in his earnings. He further argued that the tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation under the heads of love and affection also apart from the compensation under loss of consortium. He therefore, prayed that the admission of PW2 itself proves the contributory negligence on part of the auto driver and thus, prayed this Court to attribute 50%

of the contributory negligence on the driver of the auto.

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

1. Whether the driver of the auto was rash and negligent in driving the auto bearing No.AP-28-V1433, contributing to the occurrence of the accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

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

a) A perusal of the FIR under Ex.A1 and the charge sheet under Ex.A2 reveals that the driver of t