IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company in cases of motor vehicle accidents, the determination of contributory negligence, and the entitlement of claimants to enhanced compensation for future prospects.

JUDGMENT

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J. - Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent-Roayl Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Hanuman Junction Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, (in short the Royal Sundaram), U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 13/4/2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.335/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum- Prl.District Judge, Ongole, (in short, the Tribunal). The learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition partly, awarded total compensation of Rs.61, 52, 000.00 and by applying the principle of pay and recovery directed the appellant to pay 75% of the said amount which comes to Rs.46, 14, 000.00, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of T.Sreedhar in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29/4/2007.

3. The present Appellant is the 2nd respondent in MVOP No.335/2007 before the learned Tribunal; The 1st respondent in the appeal is the claimant; The 2nd respondent in the appeal is owner of lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 1012; The 3rd respondent in the appeal is the mother of the deceased.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 29/4/2007 at about 07.30 a.m., T.Sreedhar (in short, the deceased) along with his wife (petitioner) and other relatives were proceeding to a marriage function at Mellacheruvu village from Hyderabad in a Maruthi car bearing No.AP 28 AS 5792; when they reached a place near Kamineni Hospital, Narkatpally, a lorry bearing No.AP 37W 1012 belonging to the 1st respondent (owner) insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company, came in a rash and negligent manner, in opposite direction and dashed the Maruthi car; as a result all the in-mates of the car sustained severe injuries and were shifted to nearby hospital; T.Sreedhar (deceased) died in the hospital on the same day; police registered a case in Cr.No.49/2007 of Narkatpally Police Station for the offence punishable U/secs.337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code; Hence, the wife of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1, 00, 00, 000.00; The 3rd respondent is the mother of the deceased.

5. The Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing counter on the ground that the driver of the crime lorry was not having effective driving license at the time of accident; and that the driver of the Maruthi car was also not having valid driving license; and the claim is excessive and arbitrary; and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

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

1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of 1st respondent or that of Maruthi car or that contributory negligence of both the driver?

2. What is the correct age and income of deceased as on the date of accident.

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

4. To what relief?

8. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked apart from Exs.X-1 to X-5. On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent was examined as R.W-1 and on behalf of the appellant-2nd respondent, R.Ws-2 and 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked.

9. The learned Tribunal recorded finding on issue No.1 that there was head on collision between the two vehicles i.e., lorry and the car, which contributed to the accident, and that the main negligence was on the part of the crime lorry and arrived the contributory negligence of the lorry at 75%, and the driver of the car at 25%.

10. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2, estimated income of the deceased as Rs.45, 000.00 per month, and considered his age as 34 years as on the date of accident.

11. The learned Tribunal further applied m