IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the principle that compensation in motor vehicle accident cases should reflect the victim's income and the impact on dependents.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 24.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 183 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation, with regard to the death of the Udayagiri Venkata Rattaiah (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 24.02.2011 at 04.30 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.8,23,500/-.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) Deceased Udayagiri Venkata Rattaiah was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was aged 26 years prior to his death. He was working as mason and used to earn Rs.500/- per day and contributing his entire earnings towards maintenance of his family.

(ii) On 24.02.2011 at about 04.30 p.m., the deceased was returning to Mandanaidupalli Village, on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 25 Q 3302, after dropping his mother at Duttalururu bus stand. When the deceased reached Duttaluru tank bund road, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5960 (“offending vehicle” for short), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed proceeding from Vijayawada to Proddaturu, dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) Due to sudden premature death of the deceased the claimants have lost their earning member of the family. Claimant No. 1 was seven (07) months pregnant and subsequently on 21.06.2011, she gave birth to a female child, who is none other than the claimant No. 5 and she is entitled to the compensation along with other claimants.

(iv) The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, during his employment under the respondent corporation. Hence, the respondent corporation is liable to pay compensation.

4. Respondent corporation got filed a counter, contending that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred was due to the fault of the deceased. The compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:

(1) Whether the pleaded accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5960 and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount?

(3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined.

7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.8,23,500/-. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation as follows: (1) petitioner No. 1 is entitled to receive Rs.4,93,500/- (2) petitioner No. 2 is entitled to receive Rs.90,000/- (3) petitioner No. 3 is entitled to receive Rs.90,000/- (4) petitioner No. 4 is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- and (5) petitioner No. 5 is entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal permitted the petitioner No. 1 to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of two (02) years. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were permitted to withdraw their share of amount by filing an application. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 share shall b