IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that just compensation must be determined based on established income, future prospects, and the liability of the insurance company, irrespective of the driver's licensing status.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as Sri K.Diwakara Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited (in short ‘Insurance Company’), challenging the Award, dated 04.01.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1153 of 2009 by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore (in short ‘the Tribunal).

3. The claimants/respondents 1 to 5 filed M.V.O.P.No.1153 of 2009 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act (in short ‘MVOP’) for compensation of Rs.62,99,000/- for the death of one Sk. Md.Abdul Umar (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in the motor accident, which occurred on 05.06.2009 at about 3.30 pm., near Navalur Panchayat Office, on the old Mahabalipuram Road, on the left side of the road towards Kelampakkam, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA ACE Truck bearing No.PY-01-AJ-3384 (offending vehicle), which at high speed, hit the deceased from his backside, causing grievous injuries, to which, he succumbed on the same day at hospital. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as Associate Consultant (Software Engineer) in Polaris Software Lab Limited, Polaris House, Chennai, and drawing salary of Rs.31,269/- per month. The deceased was an Income Tax assessee. He was unmarried. The claimants 1 to 5 are the mother, father, two sisters and brother of the deceased.

4. The 6th respondent herein, respondent No.1 in MVOP, is the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. The appellant herein, 2nd respondent in MVOP, National Insurance Company Limited filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim petition and submitting that the claimants be put to the strict proof of the averments of the claim petition. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, while walking on the road and thus, the deceased contributed in taking place of the accident. There was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Liability of the insurance company was restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the TATA ACE truck was not possessing valid driving license to drive transport vehicle, though he was having license to drive Light Motor Non- transport Vehicle and Motorcycle with Gear. The vehicle was not having Fitness Certificate. The Insurance-Company is not liable to pay compensation. The claim was highly excessive and out of proportions.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration :

“1. Whether the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of TATA ACE Truck bearing registration No.PY-01-AJ-3384 or whether the deceased had also contributed in taking place of the accident ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, how much amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?”

7. I.A.No.1715/2010 filed by the Insurance-Company under Section 170 of the MV Act was allowed by an order, dated 16.11.2010.

8. On behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1. They also examined eye-witness as P.W.2, Medical Officer as P.W.3 and the Senior Manager of Polaris Software Lab Limited as P.W.4 and an Advocate, who translated the documents from Tamil to English as P.W.5. Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.C1 to C3 were got marked.

9. The Insurance Company examined an official of R.T.A, Meenambakkam, Chennai as R.W.1 and its Assistant Manager as R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 & X2 were got marked.

10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., TATA ACE T