The court affirmed the principle that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and fair, emphasizing the need to consider future prospects and proper income tax deductions.

JUDGMENT :

(CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J) :

The appellant – Insurance Company preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2024 in M.V.O.P. No.28 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XIII Additional District Judge, Narsaraopet, by which the claim of respondents/claimants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.35,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

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

3. (a) Claimants three in number, mother and two sons of deceased filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of deceased D.Sudhakara Rao, arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident. The deceased along with his wife, two children and mother-in-law while travelling in Maruthi Car from Nandigama to Hyderabad, on 29.08.2007 at about 09.30 a.m., they reached outskirts of Mutyalagudem Village on NH-9 road, Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 29R 2929 belonging to 1^st respondent driven by driver came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and hit the Maruthi car driven by the deceased, resulting in fatal accident. Wife and mother-in-law of deceased died on spot and deceased and two children sustained injuries, they were shifted to Kamineni Hospital, at Narketpally, where deceased succumbed to injuries. Police registered a case in Crime No.103/2007 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Claiming that the accident occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of Ford Fiesta Car, resulting in the death of the deceased, the present claim was laid.

(b) The deceased was working as Deputy General Manager – Purchases in private company and was earning Rs.41,029/- per month, therefore, claim was made for loss of earning and dependency besides statutory allowances.

(c) The 1^st respondent owner of Ford Fiesta Car remained ex parte and 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter denying that the accident occurred because of negligence of driver of Ford Fiesta Car and also disputed the age and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim.

(d) On behalf of claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked and for 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company, Exs.B1 to B9 were marked by examining R.W.1.

(e) The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence on record, framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 29R 2929 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to and against whom?

3. To what relief?”

(f) On appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary on either side, insofar as the cause for the accident was concerned, it has come to conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of 1^st respondent vehicle besides fortifying the said finding on account of non-examination of driver of 1^st respondent vehicle and non-filing of rough sketch and scene of offence and scene observation report. With respect to 2^nd issue, basing on salary certificate marked as Ex.A10, which was issued by Vice President of the company and the evidence of P.W.5, who spoke about the same, the salary of the deceased at relevant period was determined as Rs.30,000/- per month after deducting 1/4^th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses considering the dependents as 4, of which, again deduction was made towards income tax @30% and thereby, the annual income was determined as Rs.2,50,000/-. The age of the deceased was considered as 42 years stating that the same was not seriously disputed and accordingly, multiplier of 14 was applied and total