IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the application of the multiplier method in calculating compensation for accident victims, ensuring just compensation reflects actual income and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2015 dated 02.12.2016.

2. The claimants, who are the wife and children of one Pasam Subbarao (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively, are the appellants. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 2799 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 15.10.2015 at about 06.00 a.m., while the deceased proceeding on his TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 27 AR 8481 along with aluminum vessels to sell the same in surrounding villages, when he reached Akkacheruvu Village crossroad, the crime lorry driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn, dashed the said moped and dragged it about 20 meters, resulted the left forehand of the deceased was separated and he sustained severe injuries. While shifting the deceased to the Government Hospital, Ongole for treatment, he succumbed to injuries.

ii). The deceased used to earn Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month by selling Aluminum Vessels. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the owner, driver and insurer of the crime lorry.

5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident and the incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the death of the deceased Pasam Subba Rao had occurred due to the injuries received in the accident on 15.10.2015 at 07.45 A.M. caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry (Tipper) bearing No.AP 27 TX 2799, by its driver?

2.Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the TVS XL bearing No.27 AR 8481?

3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and against whom? and

5.To what relief?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy schedule was exhibited with consent.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,78,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants.

10. Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer.

11. Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that as per Ex.A.1 the age of the deceased by the time of incident was 35 years, but the tribunal failed to consider the same; that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.150/- per day even the unskilled labour is getting more than Rs.300/- per day, thereby, the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed before the Tribunal.

12. Sri N.Rama Krishna,