Compensation in fatal accident cases must consider future prospects and conventional damages, as well as evidence substantiating claims of income.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J :

Heard Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants through virtual mode as well as Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, (in short 'M.V. Act'), has been filed by the claimants/appellants, challenging the Award, dated 31.05.2012, passed in MVOP No.461 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), West Godavari at Eluru (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. The claimants/respondents filed MVOP No.461 of 2009 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation of Rs.44,99,999/- for the death of one T. Rambabu (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') in the motor accident, which took place on 21.12.2007 near Kondaparava Cross Road, at the outskirts of Vissannapeta on Nuzvid to Visannapeta Road, Krishna District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry Bearing No.AP Q 5749 (HGV) (in short 'offending vehicle'), the accident took place.

4. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was earning Rs.6,00,000/- per year by doing Real Estate Commission business, leasehold cultivation, milk business and chit fund business in the name and style of Tankasala Chits and Finance.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

7. The 3rd respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim petition and submitting that the claimants be put to the strict proof of the averments of the claim petition. The amount of compensation was said to be excessive. It was denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was submitted that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident as he was rash and negligent in driving the Indica Car. The liability was denied subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that if such policy was in existence by the date of the accident.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration :

1. Whether the motor vehicle accident on 21.12.2007 at the outskirts of Kondaparava Village on Nuziveedu to Visannapeta Road arose on account of negligence of R1/driver of the Lorry Bearing No.AP Q 5749 resulting the death of deceased Tanakasala Rambabu ?

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

3. To what relief?

9. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant Nos.1 and 4 were examined as PWs.1 and 8 respectively and the other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 7 and PWs.9 to 12 and Exs.A1 to A16 were got marked. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company examined its Branch Manager as RW1. A copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.B1.

10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, resulting into the death of the deceased.

11. On the point of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,44,00