IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect just compensation principles, including future prospects and appropriate deductions.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 111 of 2014 dated 30.07.2015, for enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimants, who are appellants, are father and younger brother of one Komali Sudheer Kumar (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are driver, owner and insurer of the Tractor bearing No. AP 37 AR 2866.

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 31.07.2012 at about 03.30 p.m. on the instructions of the 1st petitioner to transport the sand to his house at Nallajarla in a tractor bearing No. AP 37 AR 2866 attached with trailer bearing No. AP 37 Y 3723, 1st respondent driver left from Pothavaram village, and when the vehicle reached near High School in Subhadrapalem Road, Pothavaram, they found some technical problem in the engine of the vehicle. With a view to rectify the same, the driver parked the vehicle and separated the trailer from the tractor and after attending the repairs, on the instructions of driver, while the deceased was attempted to connect the tractor and trailer, 1st respondent without observing the deceased in between the tractor and trailer drove the same in reverse direction with high speed and hook of the hydraulic of the tractor hit the deceased and he sustained severe injuries, resulted, he succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital.

(ii) The deceased was aged about 24 years by the time of incident, doing Foundry Business and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased, who is unmarried. Being dependents, they claim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor.

5. The driver and owner remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that:

The accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver and it is only due to negligence of the deceased; that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving license to drive the tractor, which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate and thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1. Whether the accident had occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing Registration No. AP 37 AR 2866?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

3. To what relief?

7. In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined, but Ex.B.1 policy was marked.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor by its driver as well there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,73,500/- 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 claimants for enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard Sri Gandham Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurer.

11. Sri Gandham Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, leaned counsel for the claimants submits that the t