The judgment establishes the principles of compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the assessment of annual income, calculation of loss of dependency, and awarding compensation under conventional heads.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. M.A.C.M.A.No. 3337 of 2014 is filed by the claim petitioners and M.A.C.M.A.No. 729 of 2015 is filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company in M.V.O.P.No. 482 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

2. Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and order passed in M.V.O.P.No. 482 of 2010, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

4. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 476 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Beduduri Suryanarayana Reddy, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of the 4th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.05.2010.

5. Facts germane to dispose of the present appeals may briefly be stated as follows:

On 12.05.2010 when the deceased and another were standing on the left side of the road near Gaddam Konaiah fields on Pulivendula - Nallapureddipalli main road, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 21T 3474 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from Pulivendula side and dashed the deceased, due to that, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over him resulting in his instantaneous death. The Police, Pulivendula P.S. registered a case in crime No. 92 of 2010 against the driver of the offending lorry. The 1st respondent being owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

6. The 1st respondent remained set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the accident caused because of negligence of the deceased, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 21T 3474 belonging to R.1 resulting in the death of the deceased B. Suryanarayana Reddy?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what extent, and from which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting compensation of Rs.10,72,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. against both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the claim petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No. 3337 of 2014 for enhancement of compensation, while the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No. 729 of 2015 questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation?

(2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The material on record reveals that the Police, Pulivendula P.S. registered a case in crime No. 92 of 2010 against the driver of the offending lorry and after completion