The court emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including considerations for future prospects and conventional heads.

JUDGMENT :

Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:- Heard Sri M. Solaman Raju, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 3.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V Act”) was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 29.04.2008 in M.V.O.P. No.954 of 2005 (in short, “M.V.O.P”), passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Guntur (for short, “the Tribunal”). By the said award, the claim of the claimant-respondents 1 to 3 was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.32,40,000/- with interest thereon @ 7% p.a from the date of the claim petition i.e., 01.07.2005 till date of realization.

3. The claimants-respondents 1 to 3 filed the aforesaid M.V.O.P No.954 of 2005 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Dr. M. Aruna on inter alia the averments that in a lorry accident dated 10.03.2004 at 10.30 a.m in the middle of Kanaka Durga Varadhi of Vijayawada, Dr. M. Aruna died. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was working as Government Doctor and was also running a private nursing home under the name and style of Poojitha Hospital at Narasaraopet and was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. The accident was caused by the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.A.P.12 T 3677 belonging to the present 4th respondent, being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, which hit the motorcycle on its backside on which the deceased was a pillion rider, the rider being Dr. Anil Kumar.

4. The 4th respondent (Respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P) remained ex parte.

5. The appellant (respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P) filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition and inter alia contending that the claimants be put to strict proof of their case in the claim petition. It was denied that the driver of the offending lorry was rash and negligent. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the motorcycle rider. It was pleaded that Poojitha Hospital was started by the claimant No.1, and it was denied that the deceased started the said hospital and was doing private practice. The claim was said to be highly exorbitant.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.A.P.No.12 T 3677 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled and against whom?

3) To what relief?

7. The claimants examined P.W.1 Dr. M.V. Subba Rao, P.W.2 Shaik Kari Mullah, P.W.3 V. Suresh, P.W.4 T. Subose Chandra Bose. Ex.A.1 C.C of F.I.R, Ex.A.2 C.C of Charge sheet, Ex.A.3, C.C of P.M report, Ex.A.4 C.C of Inquest report, Ex.A.5 M.V.I report, Ex.A.6 Income tax assessments for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, Ex.A.7 original M.B.B.S. Degree certificate of the deceased, Ex.A.8 income tax returns for the year 2002-2003, Ex.A.9 office copy of income tax returns for the year 2004-2005 and Ex.X.1 statement issued by S.B.I, Narasaraopet and Ex.X.2 statement issued by Margadarsi Chit Fund, Narasaraopet were marked.

8. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in M.V.O.P, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 photograph was marked in the cross-examination of P.W.1.

9. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred in the manner stated in the claim petition. In other words, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver.

10. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased not less than Rs.15,000/- from the private practice and Rs.10,000/- as salary, in total Rs.25,000/, per month. The annual income was determined as Rs.3,00,000/