THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 01.04.2021 in O.P.No.65 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (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 petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 20.09.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., while the deceased and his wife were returning from Kondapur Village to Narsingapur Village on a Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-15-AF-7438 and on the way at about 7:00 p.m., when they reached Yellamma Temple in the outskirts of Thatipalli Village, one Lorry bearing No.GJ-25-U- 7759 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed their motor bike due to which both the deceased and his wife fell down, received fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thus, the claimants sought a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 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 of the crime lorry was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contented that the negligence of the deceased-rider of the motor bike contributed to the accident.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident had occurred on account of the use of the offending vehicle Lorry bearing No.GJ-25-U-7759 by respondent No.1?

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

3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.23,14,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.V.K.S Prasad, lerned counsel for the appellants and Sri Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the parents are the claimants. He further argued that the Tribunal has not awarded consortium and hence, prayed to award the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the deceased is a Surveyor and the tribunal was right in assessing the income of Rs.12,000/- and that there is no need to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

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

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) PW1 asserted that the deceased used to work as Surveyour in Oman, United Arab Emirates and used to earn Rs.120/- Riyals which is equal to Rs.20,000/- per month in Indian Currency. The tribunal failed to consider the same.

b) The Tribunal has held that the income of the deceased is proved, it has taken wrongly the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/- per month. In support of their case, the petitioners have filed the original passport of the deceased under Ex.P7 which discloses that he is issued resident card by Sultan Oman and that it is to expire on 29.04.2017. The account statement under Ex.P9 discloses that it pertains to PW1, wherein the deposits are made into his account and it is the contention of the petitioner that the NEFT transfers are made by his son from Oman. The remittance receipts are filed