The court emphasized that just compensation must reflect actual loss of dependency and future prospects, allowing for amounts exceeding statutory caps when justified.

JUDGMENT :

1. Claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one K. Kamalakar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), his mother and elder brother filed M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short “the MACT”) invoking Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Feeling aggrieved by granting a compensation of only Rs.2,82,000/-, the present appeal is filed praying for enhancement.

2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.GJ 19 T 3235 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company / insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the tipper bearing Registration No.KA 32 1540 (hereinafter referred to as “the stationed vehicle”). Respondent No.4 is the Insurance Company / insurer of the stationed vehicle.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, with reference to their status before the learned MACT under the impugned proceedings.

4. Owners of both vehicles remained ex parte. Both the Insurance Companies contested. Learned MACT dismissed the case against the owner and Insurance Company of stationed vehicle. There is no cross appeal by the Insurance Company of offending vehicle.

Case of claimants:

5. Deceased was hale and healthy aged about 22 years working as driver having valid driving licence for driving Heavy Goods Vehicle and was getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month apart from daily batta of Rs.250/-. He was contributing his entire salary to the family necessities by utilizing batta for his sustenance.

6(i). On the fateful date 17.02.2009 at about 04:30 A.M. deceased was driving the offending vehicle coming from West Bengal to Gudiyatham with a load of food grains along with a cleaner Y. Dwarakanatha Naidu. When they were near Anjaneyaswamy Temple at Kadiyapulanka, due to heavy fog and inspite of lights of the lorry etc. vehicles coming in opposite direction were not properly visible. While so, the stationed vehicle (truck / tipper) was parked on the road side without proper indicator lights etc. and the deceased was unable to control the lorry, dashed against the stationed vehicle on its backside. Due to such impact and accident, front side portion of the offending vehicle jammed into the stationed vehicle resulting in gruesome accident. In the accident deceased and cleaner of the lorry / offending vehicle died on spot in the course of their employment.

6(ii). On the report of V.R.O. Kadiyupulanka Village, a case in Crime No.32 of 2009 was registered in Kadiyam Police Station of East Godavari District for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the deceased Kamalakar. But, since he died, the case was closed as abated.

6(iii). For shifting of dead body, cremation and all other purposes, the claimants sustained huge expenditure and they have lost valuable financial and all sources of support of the deceased. Claimant No.1 being suffering ill health and was dependent on the deceased. Claimant No.1 being mother, aged and home maker dependent on the deceased. Hence, both claimants are entitled for just compensation.

Case of Respondent No.2 / Insurance company of the offending vehicle:

7. Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of deceased in occurrence of accident, age, occupation, income of deceased and dependency of the claimants including valid and effective driving licence of the deceased. The involvement of offending vehicle is incorrect. Since there was self negligence on the part of the driver of Respondent No.1, the insurance company is not liable. There was negligence on the part of the driver engaged by Respondent No.3 for the stationed vehicle also. The liability, if any, shall be as that of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 alone.

Case of Respondent No.4:

8. Petitioners allegations are incorrect; averments in the FIR are very clear that the deceased drove the offending vehicle with high speed and dashed the parked lorr