The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-assessment of notional income and enhancement of compensation under various heads to ensure just and reasonable compensation for the claimants, in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act) are filed by M/s.United India Insurance Company and the claimants challenging the award dt.13.11.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Chittoor (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.27 of 2003 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till realization against Respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners on account of the death of Shaik Alla Bakshu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident at R.T.O Check Post, Palamaner Town on 23.12.2002.

2. Since these appeals are arising out of the same accident and raising common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

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

4. The factual context of the case, is as under:

(a) A 40 years old Shaik Alla Bakshu was doing business in vegetables, Kanuga Seeds, Tamarind and Groundnuts etc., and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of his death. On 23.12.2002 at 7.30 p.m., while the deceased-Shaik Alla Bakshu was proceeding in 2nd respondent's bus bearing No.AP 03 V 2599 from Palamaner to Baireddipalli and when the bus reached near cattle farm RTO Check Post, near Palamaner Town, the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without taking care and dashed against the said bus as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

(b) The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 and based on the said report lodged by S. Subrahmanyam, who was the driver of the bus, a case in Crime No.130 of 2002 of Gangavaram Police Station under Sections 337 and 338 IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 for having committed the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 337 & 338 IPC.

(c) Wife, five minor children (four daughters and a son) and mother of Shaik Allabakshu (deceased) filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of his death in the said road traffic accident.

(d) The 1st & 2nd respondents did not contest the matter.

(e) The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the allegations and contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof of narration of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belongs to the 1st & 2nd respondents, registration certificate and driving licences of the drivers of the 1st and 2nd respondents' vehicles. It is further averred that the petitioners should prove the age, avocation, income of the deceased and their relationship with him. It is further averred that the claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

(f) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’ lorry by its driver or the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent’ bus by its driver or both?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for the death of Shaik Alla Bakshu and if so, to what extent and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

(g) In order to establish their claim, the claimants-petitioners adduced oral evidence. At the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were got marked. None were exa