IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the application of Sections 163-A and 166 of the M.V. Act in compensation claims, emphasizing the importance of accurate evidence and appropriate multipliers.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 07.08.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation, with regard to the death of the deceased Pallapolu Venkatareddy, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 03.02.2014 at 06.50 a.m. awarded a sum of Rs.5,90,000/-.

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 claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) The deceased was aged 44 years. He was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was doing agriculture of his own lands. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing the same for the maintenance of his family.

(ii) On 03.02.2014, at 06.50 a.m. the deceased was going to his fields from the house on his motorcycle. He reached culvert on Mallavaram Kalva on Panakalapalem-Chejerla road. There the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 7568 (“offending vehicle” for short), while going to Ongole from Chejerla, drove the same in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Then the deceased fell down on the road and, received multiple injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) Crime No. 52 of 2014, under sections 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 in Ongole Taluk police station.

(iv) Petitioners suffered a lot on account of the death of the deceased. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased, who lost their beloved son and protection in the old age. Hence, respondent No. 1, being the driver and respondent No. 2, being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. Respondent No. 1 got filed vakalat, but later did not turn up. Respondent No. 2 got filed written statement, denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the manner of the accident, age and avocation of the deceased. The accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but it was due to the rider of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased. Driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was coming from Chejerla to Ongole, very slowly, because it was fog in the road, due to winter season. The deceased could not control his speed and dashed the left bumper and head light of the R.T.C. bus and flew up in the air and hit the left front glass of the bus and caused the accident. 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 deceased Pallapolu Venka Reddy died in the accident occurred on 03.02.2014 at about 06.50 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 7568?

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

(3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 was examined as RW.1, but no documents were marked.

7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 and considered the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.4,500/- and considered the Schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act (the “M.V. Act” for short), because the claim was la