THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

17.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar (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 08.02.2016, while the deceased was riding Yamaha FZ bike bearing No.AP23-AA-0147 from Malakpet towards Panjagutta and when he reached at Kanaka Durga Temple, Erramanzil, a concrete lorry bearing No.AP-28-TD-4170 while taking U-turn has hit the bike of the deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained injuries and died.

The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 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 deceased was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the bike.

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

“1. Whether the pleaded accident that took place on 08.02.2016 at about 00:10 hours near Kanakadurga temple, Erramanzil, Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-28TD-4170 resulting death of deceased by name Banothu Mohan Rao?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.23,54,800/-. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.352 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company and MACMA.No.539 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the claimants.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the deceased was a bachelor, but the tribunal has failed to consider the same and has deducted only 1/3^rd, while it has to deduct 50%. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-, though the earnings of the deceased was not proved before the tribunal. He further argued that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% and prayed the Court to reduce the same.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that they have filed Ex.P11/Salary Certificate showing that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,228/- towards gross salary, hence the same may be taken into consideration after deducting the professional tax. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income to be very low as Rs.12,000/- per month inspite of the proof filed under Ex.P11.

He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

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

3. To what relief.

13. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs.15,228/- per month and that they have proved the same vide Ex.P11.

b) A perusal of Ex.P11 reveals that it is a pay slip issued by Axis Securities in the name of the deceased-Mohan Rao Banothu showing his designation as Business Executive and that he was paid a gross salary of Rs.15,228/- and the date of joining is shown as 13.06.2014, the said pay slip under Ex.P11 pertains to December 2015 a