Court must determine just compensation based on pecuniary loss and familial dependency without being restricted to the amounts claimed; multiples and future prospects are central to this calculation.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT by the respondent in M.V.O.P.No.1521 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”) questioning the order and decree dated 27.10.2009 as to liability and quantification of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents herein.

2. Respondents herein are the parents of one M. Lakshma Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in the motor vehicle/road traffic accident, due to the involvement of bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 9162 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) owned by the appellant herein. Claim was made for Rs.4,00,000/- and the learned MACT was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.3,08,000/-.

3. As per claimants, on 11.12.2008 at about 7:00 A.M., when the deceased was travelling on TVS Moped between Hussain Nagar and Munagudu, the offending vehicle came from Byyaram Village side and dashed the TVS Moped causing the ghastly accident due to which the deceased suffered instantaneous death. The deceased was unmarried, hale and healthy, aged about 22 years, earning Rs.200/- per day and he was the sole breadwinner for the family. His death exposed the claimants to untold misery. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

4. Claim was resisted by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C putting the claimants to strictly prove the age, occupation, income of the deceased and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle while attributing negligence to the deceased.

5. Learned MACT held the issue relating to the negligence in favour of the claimants by relying on the evidence of eye witness, PW.2 and FIR, Charge sheet, MVI report, inquest report and rough sketch of the scene of offence etc. and disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. Further, the learned MACT, taken the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Accepted the annual income at Rs.36,000/- and deducted 50% towards the personal expenditure, taken Rs.18,000/- per annum as his contribution for the family, adopted the multiplier applicable to the mother of the deceased at "16‟ and accepted the loss of income or dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. Additionally, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenditure. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows:

7. Extensive arguments submitted by both sides. Perused the record.

Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C.:

8(i). Learned MACT failed to note that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(ii). Learned MACT erred in taking income at Rs.3000/- per month without sufficient evidence.

(iii). Quantification of compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- is baseless.

(iv). Awarding of interest at 7% is excessive.

For the claimants:

9(i). Evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient to believe the negligence. Reasoning of the learned MACT as to negligence is justified. The claim was laid under Section 163-A, therefore, the involvement of the motor vehicle in the accident is sufficient to accept the entitlement of claimants and liability of the tortfeasor and owner of the offending vehicle.

(ii). Learned MACT ought to have adopted the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased but not the mother of the deceased.

(iii). Learned MACT ought to have taken the income at Rs.200/- per day as claimed and ought to have added future prospects to the income adopted.

10. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 11.12.2008 has