IMPORTANT POINT
Income tax must be deducted from the deceased's income when calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Ms. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. O. Varalakshmi, learned counsel, representing Sri S. N. K. Mahanthi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants and Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

2. This appeal is by the Oriental Insurance Company filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘M.V.Act’) challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (in short ‘the Tribunal’), dated 14.06.2017 passed in M.O.P.No.1809 of 2012. The Tribunal allowed in part the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 under Section 166 of M.V.Act by awarding compensation of Rs.95,79,211/- with proportionate costs and interest payable @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount.

3. The respondents/claimants filed M.O.P.No.1809 of 2012 on the pleadings inter alia that the deceased Siva Kumar was an Assistant General Manager, working in Chettinadu Port Services Private Limited. He was getting salary of Rs.61,527/- per month at the time of accident. He was aged about 41 years. On 09.08.2011 the deceased was proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Bhogapuram by Tata Sumo bearing No.TN-01-V6863 belonging to the company and the 5th respondent herein was the driver. The vehicle met with an accident, in which, the deceased sustained spinal cord injury and was shifted to New Care Hospital for treatment. During the treatment, he died on 15.08.2011 at 01.25 p.m. The accident was registered as Crime No.298 of 2011 under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, consisting of wife and two children.

4. The claimant/1st respondent is the widow and the claimants/respondents 2 & 3 are the son and daughter respectively of the deceased.

5. The 4th respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle. He remained ex parte.

6. The claimants/respondents filed Application No.609 of 2015 to implead the driver of the offending vehicle as Respondent No.3 in the MOP, which was allowed 02.09.2015, but the driver remained ex parte.

7. The appellant/insurance company, 2nd respondent in MOP, filed written statement, denying all the material averments of MOP, and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof inter alia that the driver was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The claim amount was said to be highly excessive.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TN-01-V6863 (Tata Sumo) by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

9. The claimants examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.A1 to A10, and also Exs.X1 to X5, viz., Ex.A1-copy of FIR in Cr.No.289/2011 of P.M.Palem P.S, Ex.A2-copy of post mortem report, Ex.A3-copy of M.V.Inspector’s report, Ex.A4- copy of inquest report, Ex.A5-copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6-copy of Insurance policy, Ex.A7-Identy card issued by International Tech Park, Ex.A8-Identity card issued by Chettinad Port Services Private Limited, Ex.A9-Identity card issued by J.M.C.Projects Limited and Ex.A10-appointment letter issued by Chettinad Port Service Private Limited; Ex.X1-Salary particulars of C. S. Siva Kumar, Ex.X2- Pay slip of C.S.Siva Kumar, Ex.X3-the case sheet, Ex.X4-the inpatient final bill summary and Ex.X5-copy of letter addressed to S.I.of Police, P.M.Palem P.S.

10. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked. No other evidence was led by the Insurance Company.

11. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TN-01-V6863 (Tata Sumo) by its driver. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving license which was valid up