Compensation for motor vehicle accidents must reflect just and equitable principles, recognizing future earnings potential, with interest rates aligned to judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (for short 'the M.V. Act') has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'APSRTC'), challenging the award dated 14.10.2016 of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty (in short 'the Tribunal') passed in OP No.2 of 2015, by which the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.3,98,824/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.

3. The claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Original Petition No.2 of 2015 under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (in short 'MV Act') seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- due to death of wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant Nos.2 to 4 in Motor Accident on 07.03.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., near Chitravathi River Bridge of Kodikonda Village within the limits of Chilamathur P.S. The deceased was 45 years of age and she was working as School Assistant at ZPH School, Kodikonda Village and drawing salary of Rs.36,483/- and was looking after the family. The claimants were entirely depending on the earnings of deceased. While deceased was travelling in an auto Bearing No.AP02Y3049 from Kodikonda Village to Kodikonda Check Post, APSRTC bus Bearing No.AP8Z1291 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto. The deceased received fatal injuries and while undergoing treatment, she died. The deceased was likely to be promoted as Headmistress within short time and would have received revised salary and future increments.

4. Respondent No.2 in OP-Shaik Mahammad Ali, driver of the bus remained ex parte and did not file any counter.

5. Respondent No.1 in the OP-APSRTC filed counter denying the averments of the petition and asking that the claimants be put to strict proof thereof. It was further pleaded that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. The bus was not being driven rashly and negligently. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto. The driver, owner and insurer of the auto should also have been added as respondent parties. The claim was highly exaggerated.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the road accident occurred on 07.03.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., near Chitravathi River Bridge of Kodikonda Village due to rash and negligent driving of Bus Bearing No.AP28Z1291 as alleged by the petitioners?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

7. The claimants to prove their case examined the claimant No.1 as PW1 and one independent witness as PW2. They relied upon Exs.A1 to A7. The APSRTC examined the RW1 and got marked Ex.B1-the judgment in CC No.310/2014.

8. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus by its driver. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded finding that the deceased was working as School Assistant. As per the service register the date of birth of the deceased was 12.06.1966. On the date of accident i.e., 07.03.2014 the decease