NELATURI VENKATAMMA Vs. PERUBOINI SREENIVASARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, who is the mother of Srinivasulu (the deceased), a cleaner in the lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 2007 filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in an accident that took place due to a collision between the lorries bearing No. AP 7V 4676 and AP 21 U 2000 belonging to respondents 1 and 3 respectively and insured with respondents 2 and 4 respectively on the ground that the deceased who was aged 20 years was earning Rs.1,500/- p.m. and examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and marked Exhibits A1 to A5. Respondents 1 and 3, the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident, chose to remain exparte. Respondents 2 and 4, the insurers of the lorries involved in the accident, filed separate counters contesting the claim, but did not adduce any oral evidence, and marked Exhibits B2 and B1 respectively on their behalf with consent. The Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the first respondent, awarded Rs.52,800/- as compensation to the appellant against respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the claim against respondents 3 and 4. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to her, this claimant preferred this appeal.

(2.) Since the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent became final, and since this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking more compensation than that is awarded by the Tribunal, the only point for consideration is to what compensation is the appellant entitled to?

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in not taking the minimum salary of a cleaner into consideration for fixing the salary of the deceased. He placed strong reliance on SANTHI BAI AND OTHERS Vs. CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS and contended that the compensation claimed by the appellant is most reasonable and so she is entitled to the same. It is also his contention that since the petition is filed also under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. at least and ought to have awarded general damages also including the non pecuniary damages.The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and so there are no grounds to interfere with the same.