IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the deduction of income tax from compensation was unsustainable as the deceased was not liable for tax, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.19,19,000.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.

Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 28.08.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.324 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guduru (MVOP No.570 of 2012, on the file of V Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore) (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the claimants on account of death of Yalla Nandakumar Reddy (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 28.01.2012, awarded a sum of Rs.12,76,800/-.

2. The appellants are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.324 of 2014 and feeling that the compensation so awarded by the tribunal is not just and reasonable, they filed the present MACMA.

3. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that the first claimant is wife. Claimants 2 and 3 are sons and fourth claimant is mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of his death. He was hale and healthy prior to his death. He purchased combined Harvester machine bearing No.A.P.26-AF-5733 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- under hypothecation agreement with L & T Finance Limited, Hyderabad on 11.03.2010. He is paying Rs.93,000/- per month regularly towards instalments under the loan amount. He used to hire the harvester machine to the ryots in his village and surrounding villages. He used to get income of Rs.20,000/- per month on harvester machine after deducting all expenses. He also took Ac.10-00 cents of agricultural land from Satish Reddy and Nudhar Reddy on lease and used to cultivate the same personally. He used to earn Rs.24,00,000/- per annum after deducting expenses. He used to get Rs.40,000/- per month on both agricultural as well as on harvester machine. He used to contribute the same for the first claimant for family maintenance. The claimants are depending upon his earnings and there are no other legal heirs.

5. On 28.01.2012, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.A.P.26-AF-9232 from Buchireddipalem towards Kalavakuru village of Pellakuru Mandal, for collection of harvester hire amount. When he reached near Pandluru cross road on NH.5 road, Naidupet Mandal, at about 9-30 a.m., one Tata Sumo Grandey LX bearing No.A.P.03-AJ-0236 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. He fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his forehead and on his both legs and left hand and died on the spot. His dead body was brought back to his village from Government Hospital, Naidupet by spending Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. Naidupet Police registered FIR under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. The first respondent insured his vehicle with second respondent under valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The second respondent has to indemnify the first respondent to pay the compensation. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. The first respondent got filed a counter resisting the claim and contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the hale and healthy condition of the deceased prior to the accident and his purchasing combined harvester machine and his income thereon and his agricultural income and the manner of the accident and that they are the legal heirs. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid and effective driving licence. It was insured with the second respondent. The second respondent has to indemnify the liability of the first respondent. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of th