THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 24.02.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (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 25.06.2009 at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased was going on his cycle from Kamareddy to Rameshwarpally Village and when he reached near NH-7 High way at Rameshwarpally outskirts, one Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-13-G-976 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle, as such he fell down and the car ran over him, due to which he suffered multiple grievous injuries and died while being shifted to the Government Hospital, Kamareddy. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

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 of the car did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident, hence their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

“1. Whether the accident dated 26.06.2009 was due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-13-G-976 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 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 a compensation of Rs.3,99,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Nandan Sharma PVB, learned counsel representing Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. V. Durga, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was deriving an income from agriculture and also he was working as a Coolie and hence, his income may be assessed as per the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 236. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income to be very low as Rs.3,000/- per month and has awarded very meagre amount of compensation. He further argued that the loss of consortium also has not been awarded by the tribunal, hence, prayed to enhance the compensation by awarding the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that, there is no proof of income filed in this case and thus, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income to be Rs.3,000/- per month in case of an agricultural coolie. He further submitted that 40% of future prospects can be granted as per the guidelines by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others.

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

1. Whether the claimants are 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) PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She asserted that her husband used to earn around Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and labour work. No proof can be expected in this regard.

b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 236, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- pe