THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.31 of 2020 is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2020 is filed by the Claimants against the Award and decree passed by the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- VIII Additional District And Sessions Judge, at Medak (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.16 of 2016, dated 04.06.2019. The claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1)(c)of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of Dudekula Nizamuddin, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 24.04.2015.

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 deceased was going on his bicycle and when the deceased reached near Shivasairam Dhaaba hotel, a lorry bearing No.AP-23-W-6766 came from back side and dashed to the deceased’s cycle and ran over on the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries over all over the body and died on the spot. The Police Shankarampet-A registered a case against the driver i.e. respondent No.3 in Crime No.34 of 2015, under Section 304-A I.P.C. for his rash and negligent driving.

4. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as pump operator for drinking water supply Grampanchayath, Gottimukkala village. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their dependency for which claimants claimed Rs.8,00,000/-, as compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondents No.2 and 4 made their appearance through counsels and later the respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. The respondents No.1 and 3 are also remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.4-Insurer of the crime vehicle filed 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 further contended that the claimant No.2 is major sons and they are not dependents of the deceased and he is not entitled for any compensation and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. 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 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP 20-W-

6766?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

8. 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 in part and granted compensation of Rs.7,04,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

9. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded the claimants prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2020 seeking enhancement of the compensation and the respondent No.4 - Insurance company prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.31 of 2020 on the following among the other grounds.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, however the learned Tribunal has not taken the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and ought to have held that there is 50% of negligence on the part of the deceased and further contended that the rate of interest at 9% p.a. awarded on the compensation amount is on higher side and ought have granted 6% p.a. on the compensation amount and prays this Court to set aside the Tribunal order and pass appropriate orders.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was age about 45 years as on the date of the accident and was skilled