THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.377 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

The Insurance Company-appellant/respondent No.3 filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2017, dated 05.12.2019, wherein, claimants, who are the wife, children, parents and sisters of the deceased Md.Arif, filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents towards the death of their family head/sole bread winner in a road traffic accident that took place on 19.05.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Md.Arif. It is contended that on 19.05.2016 at about 7:00 a.m., while the deceased/Md. Arif along with one Sathar Ali were proceeding on motor cycle bearing No.TS 09 EQ 4006 as rider and pillion rider respectively from Hyderabad to Gulbarga side and when they reached near Pepsi Company, Pothireddypally Village limits, Sangareddy District, driver of the Tractor bearing No.TS 5 UA 8701, Trailer bearing No.TS 5 UA 8700 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without following the traffic rules, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from the opposite direction, due to which, Md.Arif sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and his friend Sathar Ali died while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital. The police of Sangareddy registered a case in Cr.No.122 of 2017 against the driver of the Tractor bearing No.TS 5 UA 8701, Trailer bearing No.TS 5 UA 8700.

4. The contention of the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that, due to the sudden death of their sole bread winner of the family in the said accident, they became destitute apart from losing his love and affection and sought for compensation from the respondents, who are driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents/driver and owner, even after issuance of summons and notices, remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3/Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying their liability, disputing the manner, in which, the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased, financial and family conditions of the claimants, insurance coverage to the crime vehicle stating that the compensation amount claimed by the claimants was excessive 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:

i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz. Md.Arif, S/o.Sri Ishaq @ Md.Esar Gadde due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No.TS 15 UA

8701 and Trailer bearing No.TS 15 UA 8700?

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

iii) To what relief?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.17,88,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandrappa vs Manger, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2011 SC 2951 instead of Rs.7,500/- per month. It is further contended that the learne