1. The present Appeal is filed by National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by Order dated 03.08.2018, passed in O.P.No. 8 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty (for brevity “Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were before Tribunal.

3. The Petitioners filed Petition under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest on account of death of Mr. Sugali Madhusudan Naidu (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’). The Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and the Petitioner No.3 is brother.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the deceased was aged 15 years and he was hale and healthy. It is further case of the Petitioners that he was studying X Class in Rehana English Medium School, Gooty and he was a meritorious student in his academics. It is further case of the Petitioners that on 03.07.2016 at about 3.45 p.m, the deceased and his friend one Mr. Lalitha Kumar were standing on a motor cycle, then the offending lorry bearing Registration No. AP 21 TY 3537 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from behind and dashed the deceased and his friend. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and the wheels of the offending lorry ran over the deceased, thereby he died on the spot. Further, his friend Mr. Lalitha Kumar also received grievous injuries in the said accident. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, where autopsy was conducted. A case in Crime No. 156 of 2015 was registered under Section 337 and 304-A of IPC against the Respondent No.1/ driver of the offending vehicle. In those circumstances, the Petitioners have approached Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The Respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte before Tribunal and the Respondent No.3 resisted the claim by filing Counter-Affidavit.

6. It is the case of the Respondent No.3 that the owner of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. AP 21 C 7041 allowed the minor boy to drive the motor cycle without there being any driving license and due to negligence of the owner of the motor cycle, the accident has taken place. It is further case of the Respondent No.3 that in view of negligence of the owner of the motor cycle, he alone is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. It was further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle has not furnished the particulars of vehicle, driving license, the date and time of the accident as required under Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act nor the records pertaining the crime was forwarded as required under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the Petitioners was excessive. With the above pleadings, the Respondent No.3 prayed Tribunal to dismiss the claim.

7. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, they have examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A7. On the other hand, Respondent No.3 did not adduce any evidence, but marked Ex.B1 copy of the Insurance Policy.

8. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence putforth by the parties, Tribunal by impugned order dated 03.08.2018 partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs. 8,45,000/- towards compensation together with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit by holding all the Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal is filed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the record.

10. In the present appeal, the quantum of compensation alone is questioned. Learned counsel for the Appellant did not raise any objection with regard to the manner in which the accident was occurred. Therefore, this Court is not going into the issue of rash and negligent driving. In order to prove that the boy was aged 15 years at the time of accident, the Petitioner No.1 i.e father of the deceased himself got examined as PW-1 and marked Ex.A6 and A7 i.e copies of Transfer Certificate and Study Certificate of the deceased respectively.

11. On perusal of said exhibits, it is evident that the deceased was prosecuting X Class at the time of accident. On the other hand, the Respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any material on record to disprove the same. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the Respondents, it can be safely held that the deceased was studying X Class at the time of accident.

12. On further perusal of the record, it is evident that Tribunal having considered the boy was studying X Class has come to a conclusion that he could have got employment in view of the social status that he had and by taking into consideration of his academics.

13. Considering the case of the Petitioners, Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and after deducting 50% of the same towards his personal expenses, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was taken per month. Further on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that Tribunal by following the ratio laid down by this Court in “Lakkamsani Hanuman Prasad and Another v. G. Nagendra Goud and Others”( 2016(1) An.W.R. 728 (A.P)) has arrived at Rs. 8,45,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. As already discussed above, the Respondents has neither adduced any oral evidence nor exhibited any documents on their behalf to disprove the case the appellant.

14. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Accordingly, there are no merits in the Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the instant MACMA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.