IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that compensation for motor vehicle accidents should be calculated using the multiplier method, considering future prospects and personal expenses.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2012 dated 06.04.2015.

2. The appellants are owner/A.P.S.R.T.C. and driver of the Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 4360 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are parents of one K.Devi (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 24.09.2006 at about 03.30 p.m., when the deceased proceeding in a car near N.T.R. Nagar, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed into the said car, resulted the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries. While undergoing treatment, on the same day, she succumbed to injuries.

ii). The deceased was aged about 22 years and used to earn Rs.500/- per day by selling milk and other milk products as she was maintaining six she buffaloes. Being dependents, they claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus.

3. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car, who is not having driving license, but not the 1st respondent/driver.

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

“1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11Z 4360 resulting the death of the deceased by name K.Devi on 24.09.2006?

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

3.To what relief?”

5. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.

6. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,37,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

7. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/driver and APSRTC. Heard Sri K.Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Ch.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants.

8. Sri K.Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car in causing the incident; that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the car is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the testimony of P.W.2 cannot be believed as he was not witnessed the accident; that the Tribunal erroneously has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month; that the claimants are not the dependents on the income of the deceased and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

9. Sri Ch.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants submits that the Tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime bus; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation even without any cross objections; that under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants without any appeal or cross objections and thereby prays to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the cla