HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 2704 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Appeal, at the instance of the United India Insurance Company Limited, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 21-04-2006 passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Court below) in OP No. 973 of 2003, filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- for the death of one M.A.Gaffar in a motor accident that occurred on 09.3.2003 at about 2300 hours when he was traveling on his vehicle Hero Honda bearing Regn. No.AP13 B 9335 from his house to Dhobighat X road, in order to fill petrol in his motor cycle and when he reached near Dhobighat, suddenly, one auto rickshaw bearing Regn. No.AP 11 B 3026 came on opposite direction with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and later, he died while undergoing treatment. 2. Before the Court below, respondents 1 and 2 filed their respective counter affidavits denying all the averments made in the petition. 3. The Court below held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Court below taking into consideration of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also the documentary evidence viz., Exs.A-1 to A-8 and also Exs.B-1 to B-6, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,31,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Court below erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.6,31,000/- towards total compensation. He further contended that there is a contributory negligence between two vehicles as per Ex.A-5, charge sheet. Except the evidence of P.W.2, there is no evidence of any eyewitness to establish the factum of negligence. Hence, he prayed to allow the CMA by setting aside the award passed by the court below. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. PW-2 is an eyewitness to the accident who deposed that he is having a pan shop near Meera Function Hall and he was present in his shop at the time of accident. He further deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw the accident occurred. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the age and the annual income of the deceased, awarded an amount of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation, totaling to Rs. 6,31,000/- with interest at 7% per annum. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal granted just and reasonable compensation taking into consideration all the factual evidence on record. 7. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 21.01.2011 kvr