The court upheld the principle of awarding just compensation based on the multiplier method, emphasizing the need for future prospects and proper deductions for personal expenses.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2015 dated 26.10.2016.

2. Since these appeals arisen out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 is preferred by the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3931 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the wife, children and mother of one Narra Sivanarayana (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent No.5 is the driver of the crime bus.

4. X.Objections No.6 of 2017 is preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 02.06.2014 early hours, while the deceased along with one Ganji Purnaiah proceeding on his motorcycle, when the deceased turning the said motorcycle towards Bharat Petrol Bunk to fill the petrol on Addanki-Ongole road, the crime bus driven by the 3^rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted the deceased sustained multiple injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries.

ii). The deceased was aged about 45 years, doing business and earned Rs.3,00,000/- per year. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner and driver of the said crime bus.

7. The respondent No.1/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only, but not 3rd respondent driver of the crime bus; that the non- joinder of necessary parties that is insurer of the motorcycle is fatal to the case of the claimants; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the deceased Narra Sivanarayana, died in a road accident which took place on 02.06.2014 at 06.30 a.m., near Ram Nagar, Addanki, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3931 by its driver, if so, whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle?

2.Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3.Whetehr the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? and

4.To what relief?”

9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.28 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.1, the 1^st respondent/driver was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were exhibited.

10. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3^rd respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.15,10,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

11. It is against the said order; the appeal as well X.objections are preferred by the APSRTC and claimants respectively.

12. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 and Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in X.Objections No.6 of 2017.

13. Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not driver of the crime bus; that the non-joinder of insurance company of said motorcycle is fatal to the case of th