A court may award compensation exceeding the claimed amount if justified under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering fair quantification principles.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2008, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and order dated 21.03.2012, whereby their claim was partly allowed by granting a compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal.

2. Claim is arising out of the death of one Tata Srinivasa Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2007. While the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, the lorry bearing No.AP 7 W 4568 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed against the motorcycle from behind in a rash and negligent manner, which has led to death of deceased on the spot.

3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant Nos.3 is unmarried sister and claimant No.4 is elder brother of the deceased.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company.

5. Claim was resisted on the ground of compliance of conditions of policy and excessive nature of compensation by the Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

6. Learned MACT held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants by referring to the FIR in Crime No.234 of 2007 vide Ex.A1, post- mortem report-Ex.A2, Inquest Report-Ex.A3 and the oral evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, who found the offending vehicle hitting the motorcycle coming from behind and also referring that the offending vehicle ran over the head of the deceased, causing instantaneous death.

7. With regard to entitlement of claimants, referring to the relationship etc., found that they are entitled for compensation. While quantifying the compensation, learned MACT found that the deceased was studying III year M.B.B.S. and the college fee receipts indicating Rs.2,09,600/-.

8. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.15,000/- per month by the learned MACT, 50% was deducted towards personal expenditure, multiplier applicable to the age of 1^st claimant, father of the deceased, "60‟ years was applied. Accordingly, the compensation can be awarded at Rs.7,20,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, award was passed for Rs.7,30,000/-.

9. This appeal is filed by the claimants. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. In the context of the appeal and from the arguments advanced, it is clear that the accident, negligence, death of the deceased due to accident, entitlement of the claimants for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same are all out of dispute.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimants/appellants:

10. (i) Learned MACT erred in adopting the multiplier applicable to the father of the claimant.

(ii) Learned MACT failed to award compensation under all heads.

(iii) The income should have been adopted at more than Rs.15,000/-

(iv) Future prospects are not added. .

For the Insurance Company:

11.(i) Compensation already awarded is excessive.

(ii) There are no grounds to interfere.

12. The only point under dispute is as to what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

1) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is proper or requires any interference, and if so,