The court established that compensation in fatal accident cases must reflect justness and adequacy, allowing for awards exceeding claims based on established individual circumstances and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:

1(i). M.A.C.M.A.No.455 of 2012 is directed against the order and decree dated 03.10.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 which was filed by the legal representatives of one Somala Venkata Subbaiah (deceased No.1) and M.A.C.M.A.No.3162 of 2014 is directed against the order and decree dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005 filed by the legal representatives of Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy alias Narasimhulu (deceased No.2). Both cases were filed claiming compensation for the deaths of deceased Nos.1 and 2, respectively, mentioned in the respective cases.

(ii). The above said claim petitions were decided on different dates by the same Court. Since the factual aspects relating to the accident and the defences are the same, although the quantum of claims made is different, both matters were heard and are being decided together.

Matter and issue common in both the cases:

Accident:

2. On 26.08.2002, both the deceased left Kadapa for Naidupalem in TATA Sumo bearing No.AP04-B-6434 and when they were near Gowravaramu Village of Kavalai Mandal of Nellore District, the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and being unable to control the vehicle, dashed against the lorry bearing No.AHH-3079, whereby the accident occurred. On receipt of information, a case in Crime No.116 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Section 304 (A) IPC . However, the same was abated in view of the death of the driver.

3. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured.

4. On the death of respondent No.1 (owner of the TATA Sumo vehicle), his legal representatives were added.

5. In both cases, the owner and his legal representatives remained ex parte.

Case of the Insurance Company:

6(i). There was overload and unauthorized use of vehicle. Hence there is violation. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(ii). Further, it is also the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident, negligence, death of the deceased due to the accident and dependency of the claimants shall be proved and the negligence of the driver of the lorry is the cause for the accident. However, the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of the owner and Insurance Company of the lorry.

Case of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005:

7. Deceased No.1 / Somala Venkata Subbaiah was aged 30 years and was running a hotel at Naidupalem. He was the sole bread winner of the family. The claimants lost the valuable financial and emotional support of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased.

Case of Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005:

8. Deceased No.2 / Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy was working as Civil Engineer in K.M.C. Constructions Ltd., and was getting a salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. He was further privately attending work relating to planning and preparing estimates of lands and structures. He was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per month as a building planner. He was aged about 45 years. He was the sole bread winner of the family. Due to his death, the whole family lost all the valuable financial and emotional support. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased.

9. Both appeals are filed by the claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 as against the c