THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the M.V.Act, against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge), Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2014, dated 16.09.2019, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.14,81,200/- to the respondent No.1 herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 seeking compensation for the death of the Varre Raju (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA- 0999. It is contended that on 09.05.2006, the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike bearing no.AP-36-L5200 towards Kurvai Village on Warangal-Khammam highway, when the deceased reached near Hero Honda showroom, a lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dash the deceased’s vehicle, as a result deceased received several injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.96 of 2016 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle, wherein a charge sheet was also filed against driver of the Crime Lorry and made him responsible for the accident. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal, the deceased was aged about 22 years and was working as Mechanic and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, as on the date of accident. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimant lost her beloved son and all the claimants lost their happiness and lost deceased’s company and there is no other person to take care of the claimant and the claimant lost their dependency.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Driver of offending vehicle and respondent No.2-Owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 – National Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, 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 submitted that there was self negligence on the part of the deceased, due to which, the said accident occurred and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

“1) Whether the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount, if so from whom and to what amount?

3) To what result ?”

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.14,81,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that the claimant has claimed compensation Rs.8,00,000/- but the Tribunal erroneously passed the exorbitant award of Rs.14,81,200/- in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence and the income of the deceased and also the interest portion was taken on the higher side. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was bachelor and the Tribunal ought to have deducted the personal expenses 50% instead of 1/3^rd as per the settled principles of law while computi