IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized accurate income assessment and correct multiplier application in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.)

Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the order, dated 23.07.2007, in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) by the claimants to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is husband of the first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 08.04.2005, awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- towards compensation.

2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience

3. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner is the wife and second and third petitioners are the major sons of the deceased. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. as on the date of accident. Petitioners are dependants on the earnings of the deceased. On 08.04.2005 at about 06:00 pm. deceased was engaged as coolie in the Tractor bearing registration No.AP 16 AK 901 with Trailer No.972 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) of the first respondent for weighing and un-loading paddy along with some other coolies. After un-loading the paddy, while the offending vehicle was returning from Marrivada village, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, it turned turtle. Immediately after the accident, all the injured in the offending vehicle were shifted to Family Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. Later, the deceased was shifted to American Hospital, Gudivada, for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries on 12.04.2005 at about 01:45 PM and a case in Crime No.38 of 2005 was registered. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. First respondent is the owner and second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which was validly insured at the time of accident. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. First respondent filed a counter contending in substance that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent and the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid driving license and if the petitioners are entitled to compensation, it can be only from the second respondent being the insurer as such prays to dismiss the Petition against him.

5. Second respondent/insurer got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the manner of the accident and occupation of the deceased. The deceased and other injured were traveling in the offending vehicle as un-authorized passengers. The offending vehicle was used for transport purpose other than for the purposes for which it was meant for. There are violations of policy conditions. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount, and from which of the respondents?

2. Whether the claim of the petitioners is excessive or not?

3. To what relief?

7. While so, there was another connected M.V.O.P. No.286 of 2005 filed by one Thota Nancharaiah, who was injured in the same accident. The Tribunal on the memos filed in both the Petitions, clubbed both the Petitions and recorded evidence in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005. So, a joint trial was conducted. One of the claimants i.e., first petitioner in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 was examined as PW.2. In both these Petitions together, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.X-1 to X-3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to RW.3 were examined