IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that claimants are entitled to just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Ms. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant-United India Insurance Company limited and Sri Srinivasula Reddy Kommasani, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. The claimants- Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed MVOP No. 978 of 2014 in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (in short “the Tribunal”) claiming compensation of Rs.17 lakhs for the death of the deceased namely Sasubelli Venkata Narasimha Rao in road accident. Their case was that the deceased was doing final year B.Tech, graduation course in G.M.R. Information Technology Institute at Rajam of Srikakulam District. The deceased was aged about 20 years. On 10.06.2012 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motorcycle from Vizianagaram to Cheepurupalli and when he reached near railway over bridge at Nellimarla, a Tata Ace vehicle bearing No. AP 35 V 4245 proceeding towards Vizianagaram and coming in the opposite direction hit the motorcycle. The Tata Ace vehicle was driven by its driver - the respondent No. 2 in claim petition in rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained head injury and he was taken to the Maharaja Institute of Medical Sciences and from there the deceased was referred to another hospital where he was declared as brought dead. They claimed that the monthly salary of the deceased would have been at the beginning at Rs.30,000/- per month, as an employee in one of the top most companies at the beginning, being a brilliant student all through his career. The students who were selected along with the deceased were getting similar package.

3. The respondent No. 1 in the claim petition (respondent No. 3 herein) is the owner and respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 4 herein) is the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 3 (the appellant herein) is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The owner and driver remained ex-parte.

4. The insurance company filed written statement denying the manner of accident. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance company and the insurance policy was valid from 18.11.2011 to 17.11.2012 was not disputed. However, it raised the objection with respect to the petition as bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the motorcycle. The driver of the offending vehicle was said as not responsible for the accident. It did not admit that the driver was having valid and effective driving license. The claimed amount was said as excessive.

5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 35 V 4245 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?”

6. On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and A1 to A8 were exhibited. Copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 by the consent of the parties on behalf of insurance company. No oral evidence was led by the insurance company and no other documentary evidence was filed.

7. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 35 V 4245. The claimants were held entitled for compensation. The age of the deceased was determined as 20 years and that he was doing final year engineering graduation in mechanical branch. The Tribunal determined the notional monthly income as Rs. 12,000/-, and added 50% as future prospects. After deductions of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it considered Rs. 12,000/- per month as monthly income and applied the multiplier of 18. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1 lakh was awarded and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation was awarded as Rs. 27,17,000/-. The interest was awarded @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of amount. It fixed liability for payment on the owner and the appellan