HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELANEOUS APPEAL No.4192 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.342 of 1994 dated 04-11-1997, by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur – cum – I Additional District Judge, Guntur, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. Subsequently, claimant No.2, who is mother of the deceased, died. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants’ case is that on 24-01-1994 at about 5-50 PM, while the deceased and the de facto complainant were proceeding on Luna Moped being driven by the de facto complainant, Car bearing No.ADY – 2779, belonging to respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the Moped and on account of that the deceased, who was pillion rider on the Moped, fell down and the car hit the deceased causing his death. A case in Crime No.14 of 1994 was registered against respondent No.3 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. The deceased was 17 years old on the date of accident and unmarried. He was earning Rs.1,200/- per month and maintaining the claimants’ family. Hence, claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. As respondent No.1, owner of the car, died during pendency of the O.P., his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.4 and 5. 5. Respondent No.3, driver of the car, and respondent Nos.4 and 5, owners of the car, remained ex parte and only respondent No.2 – New India Assurance Company Limited filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car ADY – 2779 ? 2. To what compensation if any each of the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.69,000/- and out of that 50% has to be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and accordingly deducting the same, awarded compensation of Rs.38,000/- to the claimants. 9. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and perused the material on record. 10. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted any amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 11. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision. 12. According to the claimants, deceased is their only male issue and he was working as mason and maintaining their family. There is no dispute about the accident. 13. In the circumstances, the only question that falls for consideration is whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and for that reason whether the compensation has to be reduced to 50% ? 14. According to the statement of the driver of the Moped, at the time of accident, deceased, who was pillion rider on the Moped, put his leg in the back wheel of the Moped and on account of that both of them fell down and the car hit the deceased. Other than the statement of the driver of the Moped, there is no material to prove the same. The Tribunal held that in the counter filed by the Insurance Company, it is stated that as the two-wheeler (Moped) abruptly fell, there was no time for the driver of the car to stop the car to avert the accident, but for this also there is no evidence. Accordingly, on the basis of the averments in the counter, a finding is given by the Tribunal, which is incorrect. Thus, there is no authentic evidence to show that there was contributory negligence of such magnitude to reduce the compensation to 50%. Thus, in case there was any contributory negligence also that may not be substantial. The car driver, who was proceeding behind the Moped, ought to have taken care to stop the vehicle when a vehicle (Moped) fell in front of his vehicle. In such situation, it may not amount to offence under Section 304-A IPC, but that cannot be a ground for substantially reducing the compensation. 15. Considering all the circumstances, I held that reducing the compensation to 50% by the Tribunal towards contributory negligence is not proper and a total amount of Rs.15,000/-, out of Rs.69,600/-, can be deducted towards contributory negligence. 16. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.54,600/-. Except reducing the compensation to 15,000/- from 50% of the total compensation towards contributory negligence, the other portion of the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. 17. It is directed that the entire amount of compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and claimant No.1, since claimant No.2 died, shall be paid interest every month. He can withdraw 50% of the principal amount only after five years from today and the remaining 50% two years thereafter. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 23, 2010. PV