THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The petitioners/ claimants filed the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum - Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2018, dated 09.01.2020, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Yelgetwar Sunil (son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in the accident occurred on 27.05.2018.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2018 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the tractor.

4. It is contended that on 27.05.2018, at about 7:00 PM the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 25 Q 5047 from Bichkunda to Pedda Devada village along with the pillion rider Hanmandlu, when they reached near Bichkunda bus stand, the driver of the Tractor bearing No. TS 17 9799 came in opposite direction with a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased motorcycle, due to which they fell down and sustained injuries over the body. Immediately, they shifted to hospital, but the doctors declare the deceased as brought dead.

5. The Police, Bichkunda registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2018 against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

6. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that petitioners lost their bread winner due to demise of the deceased and petitioners future has become dark, and they have to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation.

7. Respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 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 further submitted that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no liability on the part of respondent No.2 to pay compensation and respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of policy, date etc., as per the provisions of the M.V Act and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.TS 17 9799 by its driver causing the death of Yelgetwar Sunil?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

9. During the course of enquiry on behalf of petitioenrs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondents.

10. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.7,91,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

11. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the following among other ground that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the evidence placed by the petitioners i.e., Ex.A6, which is the salary certificate issued the Contractor, showing the income of the deceased @ Rs.1,000/- per day. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal did not award compensation under the other conventional heads and prayed to enhance the compensation amount.

12. Learned counsel for the petit