REHANA Vs. G SAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants herein are the claimants in O.P. No. 132 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum District Court, Rangareddy District, who instituted the above O.P. seeking a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 for the death of one Mohd. Qasim Jeelani, who was working as a Senior Assistant in Central Excise Department, in a motor accident that took place on 22.1.1994 around 4 p.m. near Sushma Theatre at Vanasthalipuram crossroads in Hyderabad.

(2.) The appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children and the appellant No. 5 is the mother of the deceased. According to these appellants- claimants, the deceased Qasim Jeelani was riding the Luna along with one Venkatesh-warlu as a pillion rider and while he was crossing the road towards left near Sushma Theatre on 22.1.1994 at about 4.30 p.m., the lorry bearing No. AET 2388 driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Luna resulting in multiple injuries to Qasim Jeelani as well as to the pillion rider Venkateshwarlu. Qasim Jeelani was shifted to Osmania Hospital, where he died after three days while undergoing the treatment. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as a Senior Assistant in the Central Excise Department and drawing Rs. 4,500 per month and was contributing Rs. 4,000 per month for the welfare of the family. The claimants further pleaded that as a result of the death of the deceased, the entire family is deprived of the dependency. The claimants also pleaded that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of his death and had future prospects of further promotions. Therefore, the claimants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 in all for the death of the deceased.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident, a counter was filed denying the allegations about the accident as well as disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The respondent No. 2 insurance company also filed a counter stating that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased while he was riding the Luna, which has resulted in the accident and denied the liability.