In motor accident claims, the court established proper calculations for dependency loss and emphasized the need for evidence of contributory negligence to support liability assertions.

JUDGMENT :

V. SUJATHA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.26,22,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants, this instant appeal is preferred by the Insurance company (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the Ch.Prakash (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.06.2012. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 09.06.2012, the deceased Ch.Prakash along with his friends viz. P.Pradeep Kumar, K.Tirumalesh, Sriramula Ramesh left for Mumbai from Hyderabad in a vehicle AP 09 BX 6334 driven by Syed Abdullah. On 10.06.2012 during return journey to Hyderabad, when the car reached Bombay Dabha at Yavali village on Mohal Pune Road, the driver of the car Abdullah tried to overtake another vehicle and lost control of the car, went on the wrong side of the road and colluded with a lorry bearing No.TN 52A 7789 coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe multiple injuries and he was admitted in Shriram C.S.M. General Hospital, Sholapur initially and treated there upto 12.06.2012. Thereafter, he was shifted to Prime Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and treated there upto 15.08.2012, and also undergone number of surgeries and spent about Rs.15,00,000/- for his treatment. On 15.08.2012 he was discharged from Prime Hospital, Hyderabad and taken to Tiruvuru, where he was treated by local doctors. Subsequently, his condition was deteriorated and again he was admitted in Super Speciality Hospital, Vijayawada on 24.09.2012, where he was treated upto 03.10.2012 and the petitioners incurred huge expenditure towards his treatment. The deceased died on 06.10.2012 in Tiruvuru due to the injuries sustained by him. The driver of the crime vehicle died on the spot. The petitioners suffered lot of pain and mental agony due to the death of their son. He completed his B.Tech., course in distinction, would have secured a job. The petitioners lost their support. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 09 BX 6334, respondent No.2 is the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident.

5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

6. Respondent No.2 – Insurance company filed a counter by denying the claim of the claimants and contended that there is no rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in resulting the accident. The petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of opposite vehicle who drove the vehicle without valid driving licence and badge. The insurance company of crime vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation, but the owner, driver and insurer of the opposite vehicle bearing No.TN 52A 7789 are alone liable to pay compensation. The deceased was a spinster and he was not an earning member at the time of accident. The claim of compensation is highly excessive and requested to dismiss the petition.

7. Based on the above pleadings,