THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/petitioners under Section

173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the II Additional Chief Judge – cum - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2438 of 2017, dated 17.01.2020, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of Dyanaboina Chinna Narsaiah (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 23.08.2017.

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 appellant/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.2438 of 2017 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 driving of the driver of the Lorry. It is contended that on 23.08.2017, the deceased was proceeding on his TVS XL moped and when he reached Durgamma Temple in the outskirts of Gouraipally village, a Lorry bearing No.AP-27-

U-1235 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed being driven by its driver WHO lost control over it and dashed deceased TVS XL from opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Bhongir, where the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Police, have registered a case vide Crime No.217 of 2017 against driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 55 years and was doing agriculture and was earning Rs.3.0 Lakhs per annum by selling milk from his Dairy farm. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the family of the petitioners lost financial support and their dependency.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 3 remained ex- parte. Respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that offending lorry had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and further contended that said accident occurred due to self negligence of deceased and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant 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 death of the dedceased Dyanaboina Chinna Narsaiah, was dided to rash and negligent driving of the lorry baring No.AP-27U-

1235 driven by its driver?

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

3. To what relief.?”

7. After considering the contention and rival contention and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No.AP-27-U 1235 and the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.6,50,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the following among other grounds, that the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the date of accident and was running a dairy farm and was having 20 buffalos and cows and used to sell milk every day to hotels and was earning more than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum and to substantiate their claim, the petitioners have also filed Ex.A8, i.e., receipts for purchase of buffalos and cows.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, inj