The court ruled that compensation for road accident victims must be just and may exceed the claimed amount, emphasizing the application of preponderance of evidence over strict liability standards.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introductory:-

The respondent-APSRTC in M.V.O.P.No.107 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge Tirupati [for short “learned MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 08.01.2014 passed therein, filed the present appeal.

2. Respondents herein are the claimants and a claim was made for awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Somasekhar Reddy [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’], husband of the 1^st respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3, son of respondent No.4. Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded by the learned MACT.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.

Factual sequences that pleaded by the claimants:-

4. [i] Deceased, one Soma Sekhar Reddy was aged about ‘25’, working as CNC Machine Operator in Anjusree Enterprises, Banglore, while travelling on his motor cycle along with his wife on 13.01.2011 for purchasing cloths for celebrating Sankranthi festival, one APSRTC Metro bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6644 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’] driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle and the deceased suffered instantaneous death and his wife suffered injuries.

[ii] A case in Cr.No.6 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC was registered and subsequently the driver was charge sheeted.

[iii] The deceased is the sole bread winner for the family earning Rs.5,873/- per month. The driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident and the vehicle being operated and managed by the respondent-APSRTC/appellant, the respondent is liable to pay compensation.

5. The respondent-APSRTC denied all the allegations and put the claimants to strict proof.

6. Learned MACT upon considering the evidence covered by PWs.1 to 3, Exs.A1 to Ex.A11 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 and the evidence of RW.1 as well as Ex.B1, believed the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accepted the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,870/-, deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenditure. Applying multiplier ‘12’, awarded compensation under various heads, as follows:-

Arguments in the Appeal:-

For the appellant:-

7. (1) [i] Learned MACT erred in awarding the total compensation claimed at Rs.10,00,000/-

[ii] Learned MACT erred in ignoring the evidence of RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle.

[iii] Learned MACT failed to take note the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

[iv] There is no basis for accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.5870/- by the learned MACT.

[v] Compensation awarded is excessive.

For the claimants:-

(2) [i] Learned MACT failed to add future prospects to the income of the deceased.

[ii] Multiplier ‘12’ as adopted by the learned MACT is incorrect.

[iii] Claimants are entitled for more compensation than what is claimed and that there is no bar to award more compensation that what is claimed as per the settled law.

8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to