The court established that the insurance company is liable under the doctrine of pay and recovery, enhancing compensation based on proper income assessment and applicable legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

(V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.)

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation and absolving the insurance company from liability, the legal representatives of the deceased in an automobile accident preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 14.03.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.534 of 2009.

2. The offending vehicle is a lorry bearing registration No.AP- 27-V-8829. Respondent No.1 is the owner of it. Respondent No.2 insured the said vehicle.

3. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri P.B. Narasimha Murthy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted their arguments.

4. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri Kalle Giddaiah and Sri Devara Thimmaiah along with one another person watched a movie in a theatre at Hyderabad and were returning home on foot and they reached a place near Pochamma Temple at Nizampeta X-road at about 9:00 P.M. on 18.07.2009. The offending lorry being driven by its driver at high speed, rashly or negligently came behind them and without noticing the pedestrians dashed them and ran over Sri Kalle Giddaiah and Sri Devara Thimmaiah leading to their spot death. Crime No.906 of 2009 was registered by Kukatpally Police as against the driver of the offending lorry. The legal representatives of the deceased Sri Kalle Giddaiah filed M.V.O.P.No.534 of 2009 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- stating that the deceased was a gounda earning Rs.6,000/- per month and the claimants are totally dependent on his earning. Respondent No.1 therein was the owner of the offending vehicle but he did not choose to appear and contest and was set ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance company protested the claim by taking various contentions in its counter and stated that negligence was there on part of the deceased and not on part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence at the material point of time and therefore, it could not be directed to pay compensation.

5. On the rival pleadings, the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

6. For claimants, PWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked.

7. After analyzing the evidence on record and after considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Ex.A.1-copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.906 of 2009 and Ex.A.2-copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.3-inquest report and Ex.A.4-postmortem report and Ex.A.5, which is report of Motor Vehicles Inspector, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the death of Sri Kalle Giddaiah and the other person was out of rash or negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. Based on evidence it found the age of the deceased as 21 years and that he was a gounda earning Rs.2,200/- per month and thereby earning Rs.26,400/- per annum. Considering the number of dependents/claimants, it deducted 1/3^rd of the income/Rs.8,800/- towards the possible personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, Rs.17,600/- per year was the annual income of the deceased of which his legal representatives were dependent