The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor vehicle accidents, including the determination of notional income and the application of interest rates for compensation.

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.239 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/-for the death of Maddina Rajeswari, who is the claimant's daughter. The said Rajeswari died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.06.2007. She will be referred to as 'the deceased. Her daughter was aged about seven years by the date of the accident.

4. The claimant's case is that she joined her daughter in Viswabharati School, Gudur, on 12.06.2007. On 13.06.2007, she sent her daughter (deceased herein) to the school in a school van bearing No. A.P. 07 T 3932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle), and then she went to Engineering College where she works as a cook. She returned home in the evening and found her daughter lying unconscious. On enquiry, she learnt that while her daughter was in the foot-board, the driver moved the offending vehicle, thereby she fell down and the head fell on the stone and she rolled into a side canal. The claimant took her daughter to Bollineni super specialty hospital. From there, she was discharged and brought back to Gudur to admit her to Government Hospital; the deceased passed away.

5. The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that the offending vehicle owned by the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent; there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the offending vehicle’s driver, the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased herself.

6. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement contending that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the school bus and the deceased while playing in the school fell on the ground and her head hit on the stone, and thereby she received a head injury and died while undergoing treatment. The 2nd respondent also filed an additional written statement contending that at the time of the accident, one B.Srinivasulu was driving the offending vehicle. The Additional Licencing Authority, Nellore, issued a driving licence. It is further contended that as per the driving licence, the driver is authorized to drive a light motor vehicle of non-transport only, and the school bus is a passenger-carrying vehicle; hence the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To prove the claimant's case, during the trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

8. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle's driver. It awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7% per annum against the respondents.

9. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has given an incorrect finding that the deceased had just started attending school. The claimant will depend upon her daughter after the deceased attains majority; hence she is entitled to compensation. He further contends that the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the deceased was not earning anything and failed to appreciate the fact that the claimant is a widow and no one is left for her except the deceased to take care of her in future because of her daughter’s death she became orphan. It cannot be compensable in any way. The Tribunal is incorrect in aw