IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation in motor vehicle accident cases must be calculated based on accurate assessments of the deceased's age, income, and number of dependents, following established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1038 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Eluru (hereinafter called as “the Tribunal”).

2. The Appellants are claimants/petitioners and Respondent No. 1 is driver and Respondent No. 2 is owner of the crime vehicle. The Respondent No. 3 and 4 are insurers.

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

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

(i) On 05.06.2009 at about 4.00 P.M., in Gopalapuram Village of Agiripalli Mandal of Krishna District, one K. Durga Rao (hereinafter referred as “deceased”) who is husband of petitioner No. 1, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 along with one Kuppala Venkataramaiah boarded Auto bearing No. AP 16 TT 5492. When the auto reached near Gopalpuram Village near K.M. Stone No. 4, Respondent No. 1 who is driver of Truck Auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 1729 coming from Agiripalli side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following the traffic rules and without blowing horn and dashed against the auto in opposite direction in which the deceased and another are travelling. As a result, the deceased received severe injuries all over his body and he was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Vijayawada in 108 Ambulance. On examining by duty doctor, the deceased was declared as died.

(ii) A case came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the Respondent No. 1 and investigated into.

(iii) Seeking for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest against Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on the death of the deceased in the motor accident, the claimants filed motor vehicle original petition.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 3 filed written statement denying the material averments made by the petitioners in their petition. It is contended that the accident in question was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1. The petition is bad due to non-following of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed there under.

6. Respondent No. 4 filed written statement, re-iterating the material averments made by the Respondent No. 3 in its written statement and mainly contended that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1 only.

7. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry:

1. Whether the Motor Vehicle Accident on 05.06.2009 near Gopalapuram Village of Agiripalli Mandal, arose on account of negligence of R1/driver of Truck Auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 1729, resulting the death of the deceased Kuppala Durga Rao?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 are marked. The respondents 3 and 4 have not adduced any oral evidence before the Tribunal, but got marked Ex.B1 and B1.

9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

10. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

11. Heard Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt T.V. Sri Devi, learn