Compensation in motor accident claims must reflect loss accurately and may exceed claimed amounts if justified, adhering to established guidelines for multiplier and dependency calculations.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:-

The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa [for short “learned MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 04.05.2011, wherein the compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- was awarded as against a claim made for Rs.4,00,000/-, filed the present appeal.

2. The 1^st respondent [insured] is the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA 01 D 2766 [for short ‘the offending vehicle] remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent is the Insurance Company/[insurer] with which the vehicle was insured .

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred as the claimants and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Sequence of events:-

Case of the claimants:-

4. [i] One Beduduri Pavan [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] a Shepherd, aged about ‘19’ years, while grazing the sheep, on 24.01.2009 at Kondapuram to Mudanuru road, near ITI College, the offending vehicle driven by its driver, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased and ran over him, whereby the deceased suffered instantaneous death in that said accident. Due to the ghastly accident, several sheep also suffered death and injuries.

[ii] A case in Cr.No.5 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 429 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted.

[iii] Claimants are the parents of the deceased.

[iv] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident.

[v] The deceased was hale and healthy, earning Rs.6000/- per month. It is claimed that due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost hopes of their future apart from loss of love and affection etc.. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

5. Adverting to the objections of Insurance Company and oral and documentary evidence, i.e., the evidence of PW.1-father of the deceased/1^st claimant, PW.2-eye witness to the accident, Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem report, Ex.A4-Charge Sheet, Ex.A5-M.V.I. report, leaned MACT adopting multiplier applicable to the age of mother of the deceased, taking loss of dependency at Rs.1000/- per month, awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.1000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and in all awarded Rs.1,43,000/-.

6. Since this is claimants’ appeal and as there is neither cross- objections nor cross-appeal by the respondent-Insurance Company, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, violations of conditions of Insurance Policy, liability of the respondent-Insurance Company, entitlement of claimants for compensation are all out of dispute. The only point remains for determination is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled?

Arguments in Appeal:

For the appellants/claimants:-

7. [i] Taking loss of dependency at Rs.1,000/- per month is incorrect.

[ii] Adoption of multiplier applicable to the father of the deceased is incorrect.

[iii] Compensation awarded under various heads is not in tune with the settled law.

[iv] Awarding more compensation than what claimed is also permitted, if claimants are entitled.

For the respondents:-

8. Compensation awarded is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

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

10. Now, the points that remains for determination is that -

1) What is the just and