JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the award and decree dated 10.01.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.326 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, (for short “the tribunal”), the respondents have preferred the appeal in M.A.C.M.No.776 of 2015 questioning the award passed by the tribunal. On the other hand, the claimants have preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.1138 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Muppasani Aravinda Babu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.09.2010. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children, claimant 5 is the mother, claimant 6 is the sister, and claimant 7 is the brother of the deceased.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 26.09.2010 at about 8 am the deceased and his father, Srinivasulu, started from Pamur in their car to go to Ongole to meet their auditor, when they reached Anjaneya Swamy temple near Valetivaripalem on Pamur-Kandukur road, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 1351 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) came in opposite direction and dashed against the car, as a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and his father died while undergoing treatment.

5. The first respondent appeared through his counsel and filed its written statement denying the material allegations made in the claim petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, but there is negligence on the part of the driver of the car the deceased who drove the car and caused the accident, and as such, they are not responsible for the payment of compensation to the claimants.

6. The second respondent remained ex-parte.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the first respondent, the driver of the RTC bus, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver; and awarded compensation Rs.18,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

9. In the grounds of appeal, and during the hearing, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the personal expenses of the deceased, erred in not awarding future prospects, and also failed to grant reasonable compensation under the head loss of estate, consortium and nourishment to the children of the deceased.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly excessive; the claim petition is bad for the non-joinder of the necessary party i.e. the insurer of the car.

11. As seen from the grounds of appeals and the material on record and the submissions made on either side, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident in question. It is also not in dispute that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The said fact is also established by Ex.A.2, inquest report, Ex.A.3, PME report, and Ex.A.5, charge sheet.

12. Now the points for consideration are,

I. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and requires modification.

POINT