THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.64 of 2022

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of an Award dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1763 of

2014.

2. Appellant herein is respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants-petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents.

3. Claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on the death of Sri. P. Balaiah for an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest and costs due to the accident occurred on 04.05.2014 at about

10:00 p.m.

4. On 04.05.2014, at about 10:00 p.m., P. Balaiah was a pillion rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 AK 2394, along with his son P. Ramesh, they were proceeding from Jwala village of Rajapet mandal, Nalgonda district, towards Hyderabad on the left side of the road by following traffic rules.

When they reached HPCL, Aushapur, Ghatkesar, the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 29 AD 1698 and trolley bearing No.AP 24 A 8417 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost control of the vehicle and dashed the motor cycle. Due to the said impact, P. Balaiah and P.Ramesh, fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and P.Balaiah was declared as brought dead. The Ghatkesar Police registered a case in Crime No.238 of 2014 under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC against the driver of the said tractor and trolley. The deceased P.Balaiah was aged about 46 years on the date of accident and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.24,979/- as GHMC worker. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for the welfare of his family, but due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner, love and affection and prayed to allow the O.P.

5. Respondent No.1 - respondent No.4 herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. Respondent No.2 - appellant herein filed counter and contended that the claimants are put to strict proof that the driver of the tractor and trolley was having a valid driving licence and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased Panga Balaiah S/o. Panga Sailu died on 04.05.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trolley bearing No. AP 29 AD

1698 and AP 24 A 8417?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced by the parties and the documents thereon, has allowed the claim petition in part holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.33,57,296/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

9. Appellant counsel submitted that respondent No.4 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence, he is not a proper party in the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation and passed the award on surmises and conjectures. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A.6-salary certificate, the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.24,979/- and the net pay after deductions was Rs.22,171/- and as such, the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.22,171/- as the income of the deceased for computation of loss of dependency. He also submitted that the Tribunal believing Ex.A.4-PME report and other documents, ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 55 years instead of 46 years and applied the multiplier as 11 instead of 13 and ought to have added 10% towards future prospects instead of 25% and awarded amount is ex