HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.558 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The New India Assurance Company Limited/insurer filed this appeal questioning award dated 31.07.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in M.O.P.No.500 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- to the claimants, who are wife, minor children and mother of the deceased, filed this appeal. In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of the accident involving the insured vehicle namely DCM Van bearing No.AP 28-U-3416 and about death of the deceased in the accident. The dispute is only with regard to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle by its driver. The claimants examined PW.3 as an eye-witness to the accident. As per evidence of PW.3, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The accident vehicle dashed the deceased from behind when he was riding cycle on road. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that PW.3 is not an eye-witness to the accident and that if really PW.3 was an eye-witness, his name would have found place as such in Ex.A.5 charge sheet. Failure to mention name of PW.3 as eye-witness by the police in the investigation record, is the basis for contention of the appellant’s counsel to the effect that he was a brought up witness. When the accident occurred near Ambedkar Nagar at Sainikpuri Cross Roads, naturally there would be tens of persons who witnessed the accident though not hundreds of persons. The Police cannot expect to enroll all such eye-witnesses in their charge sheet and examine them in criminal Court. The police will select only handful of persons to cite them as eye-witness and not all witnesses. In my opinion, it is not a circumstance to come to the conclusion that PW.3 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Assuming for a movement for the sake of argument that PW.3 is not an eye-witness to the accident, even then, this Court has no hesitation to find that DCM Van driver was at fault and was responsible for this accident, because it is a case where the deceased cyclist was hit by the Van from behind. The thing speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitur). Therefore, the lower Tribunal is right in holding that DCM Van driver was responsible for this accident because of his rash or negligent driving of the vehicle. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the lower Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- to the claimants/dependants who are five in number. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.2,56,000/- as pecuniary compensation for loss of dependency and granted non-pecuniary compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral and other expenses. No compensation is awarded towards loss of love and affection for the minor children. Even though compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate and loss of consortium are higher than the rate prescribed in Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, in my opinion, the amounts so awarded are not excessive. In any event, Schedule-II of the Act is only a guidance, since this is not a case filed under Section 163-A of the Act, but filed under Section 166 of the Act. The deceased was a skilled worker, he being a Carpenter, his notional income was taken by the lower Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with the award passed by the lower Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 24th November, 2010. PNV