The court emphasized the necessity of awarding just and fair compensation in fatal accident cases, including future prospects in income calculations.

JUDGMENT :

(CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.) :

The appellant – Insurance company filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.141/13 passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada (hereinafter, referred as ‘Tribunal’), by which the respondents/claimants were granted compensation of Rs.55,05,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

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

3. The claim was instituted by the Widow and mother of the deceased Mr.Marreddy Venkat Subbareddy under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for death that occurred on 26.02.2012 in the road accident. Deceased who was working as Software Engineer in Hewlett Packard Global Software Private Limited, Bangalore, while he was proceedings on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 16BU 6315 in the service road leading to Bangalore City, when reached Beretena Agrahara, Hosur Road near Shahi Garments, a tempo traveler bearing No.KA 05D 5937 driven by the 3^rd respondent driver dashed the motor cycle in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, thereby deceased sustained severe injuries and while he was being shifted for treatment to the hospital, succumbed to injuries on the way. Crime No.124/12 was registered under Sections 304-A, 279 IPC and section 134 (a) and (b) of the Act by Electronic City Traffic P.S. Later on charge sheet was filed for the said offences. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged 31 years and was earning annual salary of Rs.5,50,000/-, so made claim for Rs.70 lakhs alleging that the accident has occurred due to sheer rash and negligent act of the driver of the tempo, which was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company.

4. The owner of the tempo and driver, respondents 1 and 3 before Tribunal remained ex parte and the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company contested the matter by filing written statement, inter alia denying that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent act of driver of the tempo traveler and disputed the age and earnings of the deceased, thereby, contended that no liability can be fastened on it.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had examined the wife of deceased as P.W.1, H.R. Manager of Hewlett Packard Global Software Private Limited as P.W.2 and Mr.Prasad, an eye witness to the incident as P.W.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A13 and Ex.X1 to X5. None were examined for respondents, however, Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Basing on the pleadings and documents marked, the Tribunal had framed following issues:

“1. Whether the deceased M.Venkata Subba Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.06.2012 at about 19.35 hours near Shahi Garments, Hosur Road, Bangalore City, Karnataka State due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA 05D 5937?

2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount?

4. To what relief?”

6. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, in so far as first issue was concerned, Tribunal by relying on the evidence of P.W.3, who was witness to the accident and appreciating the documentary evidence in Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A3 – Inquest report and Ex.A5 – Charge Sheet, which were corroborative, concluded that the deceased who was proceeding on motor cycle was hit by the tempo traveler coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and the said act was clearly attributable solely to the driver of the tempo traveler and that the respondent could not elicit or demonstrate in any manner that there was contributory negligence. So far as the second issue was concerned, age of the deceased was considered to be between 31 to 35 years a