The court held that the Claims Tribunal inadequately compensated under conventional heads and set the interest rate at 9%, enhancing the total compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 09.04.2014 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010.

2. Heard arguments of Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri S.Agastya Sarma, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri Konda Venkata Ramana aged 37 years was an Assistant Manager in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. On 21.10.2009 he was travelling in a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-16-TV-6962 and at about 4:00 P.M. near Siva Sai Kshetram, Kanchikacherla a lorry bearing registration No. AP-16-W-0088 came in the opposite direction rashly or negligently and dashed the car. In this collision Sri Konda Venkata Ramana died. His wife and minor daughter filed M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.48,30,000/-. The driver of the offending lorry was shown as respondent No.1, the owner of the offending lorry was shown as respondent No.2 and the insurer was shown as respondent No.3. Before the Claims Tribunal the driver and owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter stating that it was the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling who was at fault and non-impleadment of driver, owner and insurer of Indica Car was fatal. That the driver of the offending lorry did not have a valid driving licence. That excess compensation was claimed. It prayed for dismissal of the claim.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the deceased viz., Konda Venkata Ramana was died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.10.2009 at 4 p.m. at Siva Sai Kshetram, Kanchikacherla, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Oil Tanker bearing No.AP-16-W-0088?

2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount?

4) To what relief?

5. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 and Ex.B.1-insurance policy were placed for consideration before the Claims Tribunal.

6. After a detailed analysis of the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the subject matter accident was reported to police, and they registered Crime No.189 of 2009 and issued Ex.A.1-F.I.R. wherein the allegations were against the driver of the offending lorry. After considering the direct evidence of PW.2 who witnessed the incident and recording that there was no contrary evidence placed on record by respondent No.3- insurance company, it concluded saying that the death of Sri Konda Venkata Ramana was out of rash or negligent driving of offending lorry by its driver and there was no fault on part of the driver of the Indica Car. It further considered Exs.X.1 and X.2 which disclosed about the gross and net salary particulars of the deceased and held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,01,501/- per year. Considering that he was employed in a private bank, it thought it fit to add Rs.50,000/- per year towards his future prospects. Thus, the multiplicand was arrived at Rs.2,51,500/-. Following the ruling of their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and considering the age of the deceased as 37 years it applied multiplier ‘15’. Since there were only two dependents, it deducted 1/3^rd of the annual income towards possible personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, it granted Rs.25,15,035/- and stated that it was towards loss of estate. Towards loss of consortium Rs.10,000 and towards funeral expenses R