The legal principle established in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation regarding calculation of compensation based on notional income, future prospects, and loss of dependency was applied in determining the enhanced compensation for the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellants are claimants and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P. No. 365 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Paturi Ratnaji Rao in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.05.2010.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 02.05.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. the deceased along with one Maddipati Veerraju was proceeding on a motor cycle and when they reached Decherla centre, Kondagudem on Kovvur to Eluru road, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 04V 7230 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the motor cycle from its back, due to which, both Maddipati Veerraju and Paturi Ratnaji Rao sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. The respondents filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident and age, profession and earnings of the deceased.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 04V 7230 by its driver the 1st respondent herein?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount claimed? If so, from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- towards compensation to the 1st claimant while declining to grant compensation to claimant Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. The main grounds urged by the appellants/claimants are that the Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects of the deceased to his monthly income and also erred in deducting 50% from out of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the claimants are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

(2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

On considering the evidence of PW-2, who is an eye witness to the accident, and on considering Ex.A.1- attested copy of first information report and Ex.A.5-attested copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and in the said accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. The accident occurred in the year 2010. As per Ex.A.2- attested copy of Inquest Report and Ex.A.3-attested copy of Post Mortem Report, the deceased was aged about 44 years. The Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum. To this, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 25% from out of annual income has to be added towards futu