Point of Law: Accident claim - In the absence of the proof of earnings, minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the decree and award, dated 20.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.377 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the tribunal”), the petitioners preferred this appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter called as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners is that on 27.12.2006 at about 3-00 p.m., one D. Seshu Kumar (hereinafter called as “Deceased”) along with his wife and son started on a motor cycle bearing No. A.P.16 AS 5856 from Kesarapalli to Gannavaram to purchase a cake at Venus Snacks Bakery. After purchasing cake, while returning to home from Gannavaram to Kesarapalli and reached near R.T.C. Academy, Gannavaram, one lorry bearing No.A.P.16W 8966 (hereinafter called as “offending vehicle”) came in rash and negligent manner at high speed, behind the motor cycle of deceased and dashed the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased, his wife and son fell on the road and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Dr. Siddhardha Institute of Medical Sciences at China Avutupalli Village wherein after examination of deceased, the doctor declared the deceased as dead. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and head injury.

4. The report of wife of deceased is registered as a case in Crime No.317/2006 U/Sec.337, 304-A IPC on 27.12.2006. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent is owner of the offending vehicle having valid registration of offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle, having insurance policy in force as on the date of accident. They are proper and necessary parties to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. The deceased is an agriculturist and having departmental stores and getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month and spending the entire amount for the welfare of the family members. The deceased is aged about 29 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. He died leaving behind his wife, son and parents. Hence, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-.

6. The 1st respondent filed counter by denying the averments of petition, while admitting that he is driver of the offending vehicle, having valid driving license at the time of accident. He contended that the injury sustained by the deceased was only due to fall on the road and accident was occurred due to negligence driving of the deceased without following traffic rules, without giving any signal, etc., as such, the accident was occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

7. The 1st respondent submitted that the offending vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent. He is only an employee under 2nd respondent, as such, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The M.V. Inspector did not express any different opinion regarding the cause of accident in M.V.I. report. The insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in force at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurer/3rd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation as indemnifier to the petitioners, if any payable to the petitioners. He contended that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and they are put to strict proof of the averments regarding age, earning capacity of the deceased at the time of accident. Hence, he requested to dismiss the claim petition.

8. The 2nd respondent remained exparte without filing counter.

9. The 3rd respondent filed counter by denying the averments of the petition and contending that the 3rd respondent is not received any intimation about the accident or any documents from the insured U/Sec.137(3) of Motor Vehicles Act. He contended that the insurer and insured of the motor cycle bearing No.A.P.16 AC 5856 are also proper and necessary parties for