THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

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

173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chief Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Cviil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.379 of 2018, dated 10.10.2004, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of Shaik Rasheed (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 03.01.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.379 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 by the RTC bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-3521. It is contended that on 03.01.2018, the deceased was proceeding by walk at Chaderghat Bridge, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-3521 driver of the offending RTC Bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the bus and made responsible for the accident. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the petitioners was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Auto driver. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency, as such petitioners claim compensation of rupees Rs.20,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.1 & 2 filed common 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 the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 are majors, and as such the claim seeking compensation is not maintainable and that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. 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 had occurred resulting in death of the deceased Shaik Rasheed, due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bearing registration No.AP28z 3521, by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the Respondents?

iii) To what relief?

6. After going into the merits and considering the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver and awarded compensation of Rs.6,95,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the amount the other grounds that the learned Tribunal did not consider the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and also wrongly deducted 50% of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, however there were four dependents on the deceased at the time of the accident and the Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ of the monthly income, towards the personal expense of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

9. Heard Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri R.Anurag, learned standing counsel for the TGSRTC appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

10. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed