THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/claimants/petitioners under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizambad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.323 of 2013, dated 27.08.2015, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Sugandam Narsaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)

in an accident.

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

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioners/claimants herein filed O.P.No.323 of 2013 under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles 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 Innova Car. It is contended that on 30.04.2013 at about 2:45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-AL-9943 from Pangra Borgam Village to Nizambad on the left side of the road and when he reached near Sonalika Tractor showroom near Boregaon bridge, the Innova Car bearing No.AP-09-BM-6633 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle from its behind, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizambad and succumbed to injuries. The Police, have registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2013 against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioners/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- 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 44 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing agriculture and working as submersible pump mechanic. The deceased used to contribute the entire income for the welfare of his family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the family of the petitioners lost financial support and their dependency.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, inspite of paper publication, respondent No.1/owner of Innova Car remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition and the manner in which the accident occurred, including the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and hence 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 Sugandam Narsaiah @ Narsa Reddy denied due to rash and negligent driving of the Innova Car No.AP-

09-BM-6633?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents as claimed?

3. To what relief?”

7. To substantiate the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was reported for respondent No.2, however Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

8. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that respondent No.1 was responsible for the accident and made respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and allowed the petition in part and granting a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the O.P. in toto as the claimants lost sole bread winner of their family. Further, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into