IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Sec.134(c) and Sec.149(2)(a)(ii), in the context of insurance liability and compensation for motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI,J. - Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chari, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri P.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents No.1 to 5.

2. This appeal is preferred by the respondents No.3 and 4/United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Srikakulam and Branch Office, Vizianagaram, (in short the United India Insurance Company Limited) and its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam, is filed U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the award dtd. 26/8/2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.118/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Vizianagaram (in short, the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.26,72,200.00 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Kadraka Rama Rao in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 5/7/2016.

3. The present appellants are the respondents No.3 and 4 respectively in MACMA 118/2007 before the learned Tribunal; The respondents No.1 to 5 are the claimants; The 6th respondent/claimant died pending MACMA 118/2007; The 7th respondent is the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 C 6001 and the 8th respondent is the owner of the said motor cycle.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 5/7/2016 at about 08.00 a.m., the deceased Kandraka Rama Rao (in short, the deceased) went to Duddukallu village to attend the treatment of a patient and after completion of work, he was proceeding to Kothavalasa village on his two wheeler bearing No.AP 33 A 1743; he reached a place between Doddugallu and Kothavalasa on his way, the 1st respondent rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 C 6001, coming from opposite direction; the 1st respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and with high speed, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased; the deceased fell down on road and sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot; hence, the claimants/respondents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000.00.

5. The respondents No.7 and 8 did not appear before the Tribunal and were set exparte on 11.05.2017and 21/6/2017 respectively. The 2nd Appellant, who is 4th respondent in the claim petition also did not appear before the Tribunal and was set exparte on 20/4/2017.

6. The 1st Appellant contested the claim petition by filing counter; the 1st Appellant/3rd respondent denied its liability to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. The Tribunal basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver/1st respondent of motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 C 6001 or due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased, or both, causing death of deceased Kadraka Rama Rao?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay tne same?

3. To what relief?

8. On behalf of the claimants/respondents, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the 1st Appellant/3rd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked.

9. The Tribunal recorded finding on issue No.1 that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, and that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 7th respondent. On issues No.2 and 3, the age of the deceased was determined as 35 years and his gross income as Rs.12,000.00 per month and Rs.1,44,000.00 (Rs.12,000.00 x 12) per annum. The Tribunal considered the future prospectus on the established income of deceased, as per judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others,(2017) 16 SCC 680. and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,01,600.00 (Rs.1,44,000.00 + 57,600). The Tribunal considered the number of