Compensation for loss of dependency should be assessed considering the deceased's age, avocation, income, and contribution to the family business. Future prospects should also be taken into account while calculating compensation.

JUDGMENT

U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - Challenging the order dated 16.03.2007 in O.P.No.1175/2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru granting compensation of Rs.6,11,400/- against their claim of Rs.30,00,000/-, the claimants filed the instant M.A.C.M.A.

2. On 25.07.2006 at about 10.30 A.M., one Maddula Veera Venkata Nageswara Rao of Kovvur in West Godavari District while proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 R 669 from Kovvur to Rajahmundry and passing on the road-cum-rail bridge, Kovvur, a Swaraj Mazda van bearing No.AP 35T 9398 came in the opposite direction and in the process of overtaking its front vehicle, the van driver drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased causing his instantaneous death. It is averred that the deceased was aged 34 years and was a member of HUF and running rice and kirana wholesale business and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to his sudden demise and due to the unfortunate death of his wife on the following day, his minor son became a destitute. It is further averred that the accident was occurred due to the fault of van driver. On these pleas, the claimants who are the minor son and parents of the deceased filed O.P. No.1175/2006 against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The respondents filed counters and opposed the claim mainly contending that the accident was occurred due to the fault of deceased himself.

During trial, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondents.

The Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary evidence held that 1st respondent was responsible for the accident and granted compensation of Rs.6,11,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs as follows:

Hence, the MACMA is filed by the claimants challenging the compensation as abysmally low and inadequate.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri K.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants, and Sri Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/insurance company.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellants that compensation awarded is quite inadequate inasmuch as, the lower Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.5,000/- despite the fact that he was a member of Hindu Undivided Family and running the family business of wholesale rice and kirana shop and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further contended that the deceased was young and aged 34 years and despite the same the Tribunal has not added any amount to his income towards future prospects and thereby, the compensation for the loss of dependency was drastically cut short. The compensation under other heads is also paltry. He thus prayed to suitably enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for 3rd respondent Sri Naresh Byrapaneni argued that the family business stands in the name of 2nd petitioner and there is no record to show that the deceased was earning any income exclusively. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken a reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as income of the deceased and accordingly, calculated the compensation which by all means just and reasonable. He would submit that compensation awarded by the Tribunal was already deposited by the insurance company and hence, the appeal may be dismissed as there are no merits in it.

6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?

7. Point: We gave our anxious consideration to the pleadings, evid