The calculation of just compensation for loss of dependency must adhere to established legal principles, assessing age, income, and number of dependents, with a proper application of multiplier as per case law.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introduction:-

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 09.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2013 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, at Rajahmundry [for short “the learned MACT”], where under a claim made for awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Rudraraju Venkatalakshmi Narasimha Raju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident, by his legal heirs and dependents, was allowed by granting of compensation of Rs.6,31,900/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are daughters and claimants Nos.4 and 5 are sons of the deceased.

3. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the owner, of the rd offending vehicle. 3 respondent is the Insurance Company.

II. Case of the claimants, in brief, is that :

4......

[i] On 25.06.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle near Chittavaram at Narsapuram road, lorry bearing No. AP 20 T 2490 (herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’) driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased causing instantaneous death.

[ii] The deceased was aged ‘60’ attending civil constructions work, earning Rs.6,00,000/- p.a., contributing his income for the claimants. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. Negligence of st nd the 1st respondent is the cause for the accident. The 2nd respondent, owner of st the vehicle and employer of the 1 respondent, is vicariously liable for rd compensating the claimants. The 3rd respondent is the insurer, with whom the offending vehicle was insured. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

5. 1st and 2nd respondents, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

III. Case of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, in brief, is that :

6......

[i] The offending vehicle was insured with the 3 respondent, covering the period from 20.04.2012 to 19.04.2013 subject to compliance of conditions of the Insurance Policy.

[ii] Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, compliance of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, including valid driving licence to the deceased and negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident.

[iii] Age, occupation and income of the deceased claimed by the claimants are not correct and quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1) Whether the accident arose due to rash and negligent driving of st lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 2490 by 1st respondent, resulting death of the deceased?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

IV. Evidence before the learned MACT:

8. Documentary evidence:-