Point of Law: While granting compensation, rigid confines of the claim set forth by the claimants in their petition, need not be given due cognizance if the facts and circumstances warrant for justifiable reasons, compensation which is 'just' in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Court shall be the order, particularly having regard to the effect of Section 166 and Section 168 of M.V. Act

JUDGMENT :

M Venkata Ramana, J.

This appeal is directed against decree and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No.422 of 2008 dated 28.03.2011.

2. By this award, out of a claim for Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,30,000/- under different heads.

3. This appeal is preferred by the claimants. They are unfortunate parents of a boy Master Oleti Kusumanth, who was 11 years old and was studying 6th class in R.K.Vidyalaya School, Chittoor. On 08.04.2008, according to the case of the appellants, when he was returning from school in school bus KA-25-4773 when he was alighting, he fell down from the foot board on to the road and when the rear wheel of the bus ran him over causing instantaneous death. It was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, according to them.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the bus and it was insured with the second respondent on the date of the accident. The second respondent denied the claim of the appellants mainly on the ground that it is not liable to satisfy their claim since the first respondent did not engage on contract additional worker and further stating that the claim is excessive.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's bus bearing No.KA25-4773?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation for the death of O.Kusumanth, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Basing on the evidence of the claimants, through their witnesses, viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and considering the defence of the second respondent, which produced Ex.B1 the copy of insurance policy, the Tribunal passed an award for compensation as stated above against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

7. Dissatisfied, the claimants preferred this appeal.

8. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in awarding compensation on the premise that it is meager and various parameters required as per law were not considered. It is further pointed out that sums awarded particularly in applying a multiplier considering the age of the mother, deduction effected towards personal expenses of the deceased and failure to consider appropriately towards future prospects as well as loss of estate and funeral expenses had lead to failure of justice. Thus contending, it is requested to reevaluate compensation to be awarded.

9. None represented the second respondent-insurer, when the matter was listed on 28.01.2020 and thereafter this matter was posted to this day for orders. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent-insurer even this day. In the above circumstances, this appeal is being disposed of basing on the material available since arguments have already been advanced on behalf of the appellants on 23.01.2020.

10. Now, the point for determination is : -

"Whether the Tribunal considered the matter in proper perspective in awarding compensation under different heads and if it is 'just compensation' as envisaged under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act?"

11. The appeal being by the claimants, since there is no material that the respondents either collectively or individually preferred any appeal, the findings of the Tribunal with reference to rash and negligence being cause for the death of the deceased, recorded on issue No.1, need not be considered. For the present purpose, issue No.2 settled by the Tribunal alone shall be considered with reference to findings recorded therein.

12. The Tribunal took into consideration the age of the deceased being 11 years old on the date of the accident and having regard to the material on record, it is not necessary to reconsid