The court established that the correct multiplier for calculating compensation in fatal accident claims should be '15' and not '13', and the annual income of the deceased should be considered as Rs.40,000.

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 29.09.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2009 (M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2009).

2. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni the learned counsel for appellants. Though appearance was made for respondents, none appeared to argue for them.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

On 09.10.2007 Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-7-AF- 2555 was proceeding from Hyderabad to Macherla along with its inmates and at about 9:20 P.M. near about Yacharam the driver of the car drove the car rashly or negligently and dashed on the back side of a proclainer that was going ahead of it. Because of this collision one of the inmates of the car Sri L.Srinivasa Rao died on the spot. Crime No.118 of 2007 was registered by police/Exs.A.1 and A.4 - F.I.R and after due investigation a charge sheet was laid/Ex.A.8 against the driver of the offending Indica Car. The dead body was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.2 and was subjected to autopsy/Ex.A.3. The offending Indica Car was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who gave his report/Ex.A.7 indicating that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the car. The wife, children and father of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2009 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. The owner of the offending Indica Car was shown as respondent No.1 and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited which allegedly insured the vehicle was shown as respondent No.2. The owner filed a counter attributing negligence on the part of the proclainer and further stated that he validly insured his vehicle and therefore he may be exonerated from liability. The insurance company filed its counter alleging that the driver of the offending Indica Car did not possess valid driving licence and the inmates of the car being gratuitous passengers were not covered by the insurance policy.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car bearing No.AP-7-AF-2555?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5. Wife of the deceased testified as PW.1 and another inmate of the car who survived the accident testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were exhibited. On behalf of the insurance company, one of its officers testified as RW.1 and a Junior Assistant of R.T.A. office testified as RW.2 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were exhibited.

6. Claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereunder the claimants were not required to plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligent or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. However, the Claims Tribunal made an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record and reached to the conclusion that the death was out of rash or negligent driving on part of driver of offending Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-7-AF-2555. After considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and the evidence of Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 it concluded that on the date of the accident there was valid and effective insurance policy and the driver of the offending car had necessary driving licence. It considered the age of the deceased as 37 years and multiplier ‘13’ was applied. Coming to the multiplicand, the evidence placed before the Claims Tribunal was that the deceased was a cashier in Kalyani Bar and Restaurant earning a monthly salary of Rs.3,722/- and perks to a tune of Rs.50/- per day and t