IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that both contributory negligence and compensation calculations must reflect a fair assessment of income and future prospects in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Gudi Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company (in short ‘Insurance Company).

2. The appellants/claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased viz. Chiyyavaram Rajasekhar Reedy (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’). They filed M.V.O.P. No. 714 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajampet (in short ‘the Tribunal) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘MVA Act’) claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred at about 1.00 p.m. on 26.03.2007.

3. The case of the appellants was that the deceased was travelling in a jeep, which was proceeding from Tirupathi to Kadapa in a high speed, and when they reached Cherlapally village, a tractor belonging to respondent No. 2 was going in front of Mahindra Marshal Jeep bearing No. AP 16 S 4428. Suddenly, a spade fell on the road from the tractor and the driver stopped the tractor on the middle of the road to collect spade. The jeep driver dashed the tractor and thereby, the accident took place. The jeep belonged to respondent No. 1, the brother of the deceased. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. The complaint was preferred before the police. Cr. No. 23 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the 1st respondent. It is the further case of the appellants that if the driver of respondent No. 2 had taken precautionary measures and ought not to have stopped suddenly the tractor and spade ought not to have fallen on the road, accident ought not to have occurred. There was clear negligence on the part of the driver of the 2nd respondent. Negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent was alleged to be 25%, and of the driver of the 2nd respondent as 75%. Respondent No. 3 was the insurer of respondent No. 2, owner of tractor. The age of the deceased was said to be 53 years at the time of the accident and his annual income as Rs.10,00,000/-. The claim was made for Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

5. The 2nd respondent owner of the tractor, filed written statement and denied rash and negligence on the part of his driver.

6. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company also denied that the driver of the tractor was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. In fact, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No. 1. The other averments in the claim petition were also denied inter-alia submitting that the appellants be put to strict proof of their case.

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether death of the deceased Chiyyavaram Rajasekhar Reddy son of Jayarami Reddy died owing to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of Mahendra Marsha Jeep bearing No. AP16 S 4428 owned by respondent No. 1 and tractor bearing No. AP 04 V 4157 belonging to Respondent No. 2 on 26.03.2007 at about 1.00 pm., near Cherlapally near Vontimitta on Rajampet-Kadapa main road?

2. Whether respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the compensation claimed by the petitioners?

3. Whether the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled for compensation as claimed by them?

4. To what relief?

8. On behalf of the claimants, the 2nd claimant examined herself as PW-1 and the other witnesses were examined as PWs. 2 to 5, Exs.A1 to A11 were also marked. On behalf of the respondents, the Manager of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad was examined as RW-1. A copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

9. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the drivers of the tractor as well as the jeep were responsible for the accident. They were rash and negligent to the extent of 50 % each, thereby partly allowed the claim, vide award, dated 30.06.2017 and granted total compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- by fixing the