THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1073 of 2016 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 30.10.2015 the deceased-B. Krishna was going on his Splendour motorbike bearing No.AP-28-CY-9178 and when he reached near Lodha Apartments in Phase-IV, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.TS-11-Z-3139 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor bike from behind, as a result of which the deceased fell down, sustained head injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondents No.1 and 2 has filed counter denying the material averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the self negligence of the deceased resulted in the accident and that there was no rash and negligence of the RTC driver and that they are not liable to pay compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased-B. Krishna due to the rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bearing No.AP-11-Z-3139 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,42,200/- compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

9. The learned appellant’s counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded very low amount of compensation by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased used to work in VRL Logistics and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has not considered the said fact and has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month which is very low. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award amounts under loss of consortium and other conventional heads. He therefore, prayed to consider the said facts and enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners have not filed any proof of income of the deceased and thus, the Tribunal was right in assessing the income as Rs.6,000/-. He further submitted that towards loss of consortium and other conventional heads, the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others may be followed.

11. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ?

3. To what relief ?

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

12. Point No.1:

a) The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. PW1 is the mother of the deceased and she has asserted that her son used to work in VRL Transport Company, Kukatpally as a Private Employee and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and Batta of Rs.200/- per day. No document is filed in support of earnings of the deceased.

b) The claiman