The court clarified the method for calculating compensation, emphasizing the need to consider future prospects and proper deductions for personal expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 06.04.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.930 of 2008.

2. Heard arguments of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri Vattikuti Venkata Raju @ Babi aged 45 years engaged in cultivation of agricultural lands and doing finance business suffered death in an automobile accident that occurred on 22.02.2008. The offending vehicle was a lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-TU-4939. At the relevant time it was driven by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 owns the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 insured the said vehicle. Legal representatives of the deceased who are five in number filed O.P.No.930 of 2008 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. It was alleged that six persons were travelling in an Innova Car from Rayachur to Vijayawada. At about 4:40 A.M. on 22.02.2008 while the vehicle was going on the left side of the road, the offending lorry came on to the wrong side of the road having been driven by the first respondent in a rash or negligent manner dashed the Innova Car on the opposite side causing spot death of the driver of the Innova Car as well as Vattikuti Venkata Raju @ Babi.

Before the Claims Tribunal the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest and were set ex parte. Insurance company/respondent No.3 filed a counter denying the manner of accident described in the claim petition. It was positively pleaded that non-joinder of driver, owner and insurer of the Innova Car amounts to non-joinder of necessary parties. The claim made was excessive. It sought dismissal of the claim petition.

4. On these rival pleadings, the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of R.1 driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TU 4939?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

5. The wife of the deceased testified as PW.1 and a co-traveller in the Innova Car who witnessed the incident testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, a Junior Assistant of RTO Office testified as RW.1 and Ex.B.1/attested copy of insurance policy and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked.

6. After considering the entire evidence on record and the rival submissions and acting upon the oral evidence of PW.2 and the investigative output of the State Police contained in Ex.A.4-charge sheet, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident and the resultant deaths were out of rash or negligent driving of offending lorry by respondent No.1. It negatived the contentions raised by the insurance company. Then it considered the quantification of compensation and after a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, it found that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per mo