Claimants are entitled to just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, with future prospects for self-employed individuals under 40 years calculated at 40%.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

Both these appeals arise out of challenge made to the order dated 25.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No.402 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, one preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and the other by the AP State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’), questioning the award of compensation. Hence, both appeals are disposed of by common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. (a) M.V.O.P. was instituted by the parents, wife and minor children of deceased Kothakota Jaya Bharath Reddy claiming compensation on account of death caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 2435 belonging to APSRTC. It is claimed that on 12.12.2012, while the deceased and his friend namely Jangam Chandrasekhar were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.AP 02AF 8008 from Narpala to Anantapur, bus belonging to APSRTC came in opposite direction in high speed and dashed the car, resulting in severe injuries to both passengers in the car. The deceased was initially treated at Sreenivasa Hospital, Anantapur and later on, as per the advise of the doctors shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital at Bangalore. He was treated as inpatient from 13.12.2012 to 19.02.2013 and later on, shifted to I-AIM (Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine), Health Care Center, Bangalore, where he was treated from 19.02.2013 to 02.03.2013 and again, he was shifted back to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore, on 02.03.2013. While undergoing treatment there, he succumbed on 05.03.2013.

(b) It is stated that the deceased was aged 39 years and he was having earnings of Rs.8,00,000/- per annum as agricultural income, besides also earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per annum on real estate business. It is also stated that the claimants had incurred expenditure of Rs.19,63,616/- towards medical treatment at aforesaid hospitals, besides incurring additional amounts for transport, lodging, boarding of attendants and miscellaneous expenses. In all, a claim was laid for Rs.60,00,000/- including the statutory claims towards loss of consortium.

(c) The respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition inter alia contending that the accident occurred not because of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but rather the deceased who was driving the car drove negligently and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Corporation. Further, the income and occupation of the deceased was disputed and denied.

(d) To prove the claim, the claimants have got examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A17 and Exs.C1 and C2 and on the other hand, the respondent has got examined R.W.1, the driver of the bus and no documents were marked.

(e) The Tribunal basing on the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 2435?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3. To what relief?”

(f) On appreciation of evidence on record, so far as issue no.1, the Tribunal found that the bus which was coming in the opposite direction proceeding from Anantapur to Kadapa had dashed the car in which deceased was proceeding towards Anantapur and further that the incident had occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of bus by the driver resulting in severe injuries and death of the deceased. The Tribunal considering Ex.A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 – inquest report, Ex.A3 – post mortem examination report, Ex.A4 – rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.A5 – preliminary charge sheet and Ex.A6 – final charge sheet come to the above conclusion. It has also considered evidence of R.W.1, who was the driver of bus and having regard to