IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for motor vehicle accidents must consider the income of the deceased and the principles of negligence as outlined in relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 19.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 138 of 2015, on the file of the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- with regard to the death of Dandu Ramesh @ Ramesh Raju (hereinafter referred as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 19.11.2014 at 05.30 a.m. awarded a sum of Rs.15,20,656/-.

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) The deceased was working as driver of DCM Van bearing No. AP 30 X 3534. During the course of his duty, he was proceeding towards Tadepalligudem at about 05.30 a.m. Due to sudden breakdown of the vehicle, the deceased stopped the van on the road and attending the repair of the vehicle. At that time, respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 05 Z 134 (“offending vehicle” for short), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the van and also the deceased who was attending brakedown of the vehicle. Due to the accident, deceased and his cleaner received injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

(ii) The Station House Officer, Bhimadolu police station of West Godavari District, registered a case in Crime No. 207 of 2014 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. against respondent No. 1.

(iii) The deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of accident. As a lorry driver, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased, who are dependents on the deceased. Hence, the claim of Rs.17,00,000/- against the driver and A.P.S.R.T.C.

4........

(i) Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte.

(ii) Respondent No. 2 got filed a counter contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the manner of the accident and rash and negligent act alleged against the respondent No. 1. The claimants have to prove the age and income of the deceased. There was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was driving the bus very cautiously at the time of accident and the deceased stopped the DCM van in the road margin adjacent to the road divider and did not keep any indication marks or signal lights or any diversion boards. There was heavy fog and the objects were difficult to find. When respondent No. 1 took his bus near the van, in the left side, left side of the van collided to the front right side of the bus. Respondent No. 1 was stuck in between the steering and his both legs were fractured. There was contributory negligence of the deceased. Respondent No. 1 tried to avoid the accident, but the accident was occurred. There is no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 and the deceased wrongly parked his vehicle, due to which the accident was occurred. 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 accident took place was due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 being the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 05 Z 134?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, at what amount?

(3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 was examined as RW-1 and co-driver of the bus was examined as RW-2. No documents were marked on their behalf.

7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the