Compensation in motor vehicle accidents must reflect just and adequate amounts based on established guidelines, considering age, income, and dependency of the deceased.

JUDGMENT:

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, directed against the Order and Decree dated 04.04.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.379 of 2014 by the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short “MACT”).

2. Claimants before the learned MACT, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted at Rs.6,09,000/- with interest @6% p.a., as against the claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, questioning the just and adequate nature of compensation awarded. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the APSRTC, owner of the bus, involved in the accident pleaded by the claimants.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimants and respondents.

Case of the claimants, in brief:

5. [i] One Venkata Kanaka Durga Appa Rao, [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] is the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of the claimant No.2, son of claimant No.3 and 4. On the fateful day i.e., on 20.11.2012, at about 07.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his cycle to bring milk, reached near Tirumalla Satyanarayana’s Coffee hotel, nearby the Nelaturu bridge, within the limits of Angara Police Station, East Godavari District, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1966, [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’] being driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle and ran over the deceased causing instantaneous death. The deceased was aged about 23 years. Claimant No.1 was carrying claimant No.2 by the time of accident and it was 7months pregnancy.

[ii] The deceased was the sole bread winner for the family and earning Rs.8000/- per month by attending painting works, due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost valuable support and their life become dark.

[iii] The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending Vehicle and remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC:

6. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants strictly. Negligence of the deceased in riding the bicycle cannot be ignored. Quantum of compensation granted is excessive.

7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of st the 1 respondent – driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1966?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation and if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

8. Evidence before the learned MACT:-

[I] Documentary Evidence

Findings of the learned MACT:

9. [i] With the evidence of claimant as PW.1 and eye witness as PW.2 and the recitals of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, are fit to be accepted. Evidence of RW.1 is fit to be ignored, as there is sufficient evidence to prove the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

[ii] While quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT taken the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 and adopted ‘17’ multiplier by rejecting the contentions of the claimants about the age of the deceased as ‘23’, referring to age of the father of the deceased etc., and taken the income at Rs.3000/- per month, found loss of dependency at Rs.4,59,000/- awarded Rs.1,00