The court emphasized the necessity of just compensation in motor accident claims, enhancing the awarded amount based on established legal principles regarding conventional heads.

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 impugning the award dated 10.01.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.699 of 2009.

2. The offending vehicle involved in this case is Hero Honda CBZ Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-37-AK-9827. Respondent No.1 was the driver. Respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.3 was the insurer.

3. Heard arguments of Sri N.Srihari, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri V.K.Naidu, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Despite the notice, none entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. The following facts are required to be noticed :

Sri P.Venkata Rao, aged 55 years was riding a bicycle from Tadepalligudem to Juvvalapalem on 29.06.2009 and at about 9:30 A.M. respondent No.1 drove the offending motorcycle at high speed, rashly or negligently and dashed the cyclist leading to his spot death. Tadepalligudem Town Police Station registered Crime No.254 of 2009 under Section 304A I.P.C. as against respondent No.1. The two sons of the deceased staked a claim for compensation as legal representatives of the deceased and in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act they prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and they urged that their father was a watchman earning Rs.3,500/- per month.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to contest and were set ex parte. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company resisted the claim stating that the death was out of negligence of the deceased and the deceased was an old and sick person earning no money and prayed for dismissal of the claim.

5. Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs. and STs. (POA) Act, West Godavari, Eluru framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident dated 29.06.2009 occurred due to the rash or negligent riding of Hero Honda CBZ Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-37-AK-9827, by the 1^st respondent as alleged in the petition?

2) Whether the accident was occurred due to self negligence of the deceased-Polepalli Venkata Rao himself as alleged in para 10 of the written statement of 3^rd respondent?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

4) To what relief?

6. For claimants, PW.1 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced and a copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1.

7. After considering the rival submissions and the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal recorded that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of respondent No.1. At the material point of time respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was covered by a valid and effective insurance policy as per Ex.B.1. In the present appeal these aspects remain unchallenged.

8. The Claims Tribunal recorded the age of the deceased as 55 years. Though his children claimed him to be a watchman, the Claims Tribunal, on evidence, disbelieved such version and then it considered his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Out of it, the Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd towards possible personal expenses of the deceased and his net income was arrived at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased multiplier ‘11’ was applied. Accordingly, it granted Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss of dependency.

9. The learned Claims Tribunal held that, towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-, towards love and affection Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs.3,000/- was sufficient and accordingly granted the same.

10. In this appeal, the learned counsel for appellants contended that compensation awarded was inadequate a