The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, taking into account the deceased's income, loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and the need to award the actual due and payable amount despite the claimant seeking a lesser amount.

JUDGMENT:

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

This is an appeal filed by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.484/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam, against the common order and decree dated 26.05.2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants in MVOP 484/2001 who are the appellants herein is that one B.Kondaiah as a pillion rider was travelling on the motor cycle of P.Krishna Rao, while P.Krishna Rao driving the motor cycle; they reached a place near Jamiya Mosque on N.H.5 road near Narasannapeta; a lorry came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle; as a result, Kondaiah and Krishna Rao sustained grievous injuries; they were shifted to Government Hospital, Narasannapeta; Krishna Rao died in the hospital; Kondaiah was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam; He also died on 30.03.2001; Hence, claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of B.Kondaah, against the owner of the lorry and insurer of the lorry.

4. The dependants of other deceased also filed petition claiming compensation in MVOP 471/002. The learned Tribunal delivered a common order on 26.05.2006 holding that the claimants in the present appeal are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

5. The contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal is that the claim is excessive, and the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

6. The owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal notionally fixed the income of deceased at Rs.60/- per day only, which is on a lower side; and further, the learned Tribunal did not award proper amounts under the conventional heads; and thereby failed to award just compensation.

8. No arguments were submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

9. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal in MVOP 484/2001 warrants interference of this Court?

2. To what relief?

10. POINT No.1:

The main contention of the appellants/claimants is that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation. The case of the claimants was that the deceased B.Kondaiah was earning Rs.2,500/-per month during the period of accident in the year 2001. The learned Tribunal considered him as a mason and fixed the income at Rs.60/-per day, and accordingly arrived the monthly income at Rs.60 x 30 = Rs.1,800/-. No specific and tangible evidence was placed by the claimants establishing that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month, as mason. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal on that aspect.

11. However, the leaned Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3 income of the deceased towards personal expenses, though there are four dependants in the case. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma’s case, ¼ of the income of deceased be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.1,800 – 450 = Rs.1,350/-per month, and the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.1,350 x 12 = Rs.16,200/-.

12. The age of deceased was fixed by the learned Tribunal, as 35 years. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and other