The family pension received by the wife of the deceased in a road traffic accident is not a "pecuniary advantage" and is not liable for deduction while determining the compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J. - This appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") is filed at the behest of the claimants, challenging the Judgment and Award dtd. 16/10/2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (for short "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.120 of 2015 awarding a sum of Rs.21,20,000.00 with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation to the claimants from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition.

3. The brief facts, as culled out from the record, are that this claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of the deceased - T.Tirupathi Rao in a road traffic accident. On 6/11/2013 at 8.15 a.m., when the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing No.TN 09 BS 9749 along with his two children - Neerajana and Rohit Ram Charan Teja to drop them at the school, and when he reached opposite to the Traffic Control Room, Sardar Patel Road, a garbage carrying vehicle bearing No.TN 04 A/C 8791 owned by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chennai) driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind due to which, he along with his two children fell on the ground, and sustained severe injuries. The said garbage vehicle ran over the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased - Tirupathi Rao and he died on the spot. Whereas, his son and daughter also sustained injuries and the daughter of the deceased died on the spot. His son was shifted to the hospital for treatment.

(b) The matter was reported to the Police by the brother of the deceased, namely, T. Shanmugha Rao, alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said garbage vehicle bearing No.TN 04 A/C 8791 by its driver. Based on the report, a case in Crime No.560 of 2013 of J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai, was registered for the offences under Ss. 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. After the investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted to the Court by the Police against the accused driver - Jaya Prakash (1st respondent) for having committed the offence punishable under Ss. 279, 338 and 304-A IPC.

(c) The claimants 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.51,00,000.00, before the Tribunal under various heads, on account of the death of the deceased - T.Tirupathi Rao in the road traffic accident.

(d) The 1st respondent-driver filed a counter and the claimants are put to strict proof of mode of the accident, age, and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. It is further averred that the 1st respondent had a valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy at the time of the accident and prayed to dismiss the petition.

(e) The 3rd respondent -New India Assurance Company filed a counter which was adopted by the 4th respondent and contending inter alia that the deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without wearing a helmet and without having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and violated the provisions of Ss. 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act. It is further contended that the liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the offending vehicle (1st respondent) had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and there was a contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles. The claim of compensation is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.

(f) The 2nd respondent did not contest the matter and the 5th respondent, who is none other than t