The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of legal precedents to determine loss of dependency and future income.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 09.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of one R.Bathi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 18.10.2007 at about 5.30 AM.

5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 52 years and eking out his livelihood by working as a bullock-cart owner-cum-driver; on 18.10.2007 at about 5.30 AM the deceased was going on a bullock-cart and reached the place of accident; the respondent No.1/driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP03 W 7007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bullock-cart on its back; as a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his head; he was shifted to SVRR Government Hospital, Tirupati and later, to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati; he died on 19.10.2007 at about 5.00 AM; his cart was badly damaged and bull also died later; police registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); after investigation, they laid police report (charge sheet) for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 279 of IPC against the respondent No.1 vide Calendar Case No.11 of 2008; the claimants are wife, sons and daughter of the deceased, respectively; the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

7. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased; the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.

8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased R.Bathi Reddy, died in the bus accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Bharathi Bus bearing No.AP03 W 7007 by its driver on 18.10.2007?

2. What was the age and income of the deceased on the date of his death?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got examined the eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2, besides exhibited four documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by either of the respondents.

10. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No.1. This finding of the learned Tribunal was not challenged either by the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle or the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. In respect of issue No.2, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence, fixed the age of the deceased as ‘52 years’ and arrived the income notionally at Rs.100/- per day. Accordingly, assessed the quantum of compensation at Rs.3,60,000/- by awarding interest at 6% per annum.

11. The claimants challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it is not a just compensation and that, the Tribunal failed to award proper amount as per law.

12. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was working as a bullock-cart driver and earning Rs.500/- per day, but the learned Tribunal notionally fixed the income at Rs.100/- per day which is on a lower