IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that all relevant income evidence must be considered in compensation calculations, reinforcing the need for accurate assessments in fatal accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

Nyapathy Vijay, J.

This Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated 15.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.765 of 2008 by the Principal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The claimants are the wife and children of one Eerla Hari Babu (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’). They had filed MVOP claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. It is their case that on 14.09.2007, while the deceased was proceeding in a car bearing No.AP-10AV-T/R-2223 along with his friend V.V.Ravi Kumar from Cheemakurthi to Chennai.

When they reached near Swarna Toll Plaza near Sullurupet, the driver of the car in a rash and negligent manner dashed the toll way stop rod and dashed an ongoing lorry from its behind. As a result, the car turned turtle and both the deceased as well as his friend died on the spot. The dead bodies were shifted to Government Hospital, Sullurpet. A case in Crime No.64 of 2007 was registered by the D.V.Satram Police Station. The deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.86,000/- per month by transporting granite in his lorries.

4. The Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The Respondent No.2-insurance company filed their formatted counter denying every aspect of the claim.

5. In the course of trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. The Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked through PW.3. On behalf of respondents, Ex.B.1 insurance policy was marked.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident, resulting in death of the deceased, had occurred due to negligent driving of car bearing No.AP-10- AV-T/R-2223, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, how much amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 14 and assessed Rs.40,000/- as the income of the deceased and granted compensation of Rs.43,51,800/- with interest @ 9 % per annum. Hence, the present Appeal is filed seeking enhancement.

8. Heard Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company.

9. As the scope of the appeal is only vis-a-vis correctness of compensation, the evidence on record are the Income tax returns for the Financial Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 which are marked as Ex. A.5, A.6 ,A.7, A.14 and A.15 on behalf of the claimants and as Ex.X1, X2 and X.3 through PW.3 for very same financial years.

10. (A). As per Ex.A.7 and Ex.X.1, the income of the deceased as per for Financial Year 2004-05 after deduction of tax is as under;

(B). As per Ex.A.6,A.14 and Ex.X.2, the income of the deceased as per for Financial Year 2005-06 after deduction of tax is as under;

(C). As per Ex.A.5, A.15 and Ex.X.3, the income of the deceased as per for Financial Year 2006-07 after deduction of tax is as under;

11. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the Income Tax returns for the financial year 2007-2008 as they were filed on 22.01.2008 i.e after the accident and was not supported by any books of account. The PW.3 is the chartered accountant in his deposition though had stated that the deceased owned three lorries, but admitted that Income