Court determined that the compensation for deceased must reflect her academic merit and future earnings potential, thereby enhancing the award significantly.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

1. The appellants/claimants, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, assail the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge’s Court, Prakasam at Ongole. By the said order, compensation of Rs.10,73,400/- was awarded to the claimants, who are father and mother of the deceased, along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claimed amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.

2. Parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The deceased was stated to be pursuing first year of B. Pharmacy course at K.V.S.R. Siddardha College, Vijayawada. On 11.10.2018, she was going to her native village in a bus bearing registration No.AP27TY 1881. After passing Kanigiri and just before the deceased was to deboard, the bus dashed a stationed lorry from behind, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was stated to be aged 18 years as on the date of accident, with an expectancy of income of about Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants preferred claim for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

(ii) The 2^nd respondent-owner of the bus filed counter, which was adopted by the 1^st respondent-driver of the bus, stating that the bus was hired to 4^th respondent-Corporation and insured with the 3^rd respondent and that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased which contributed to the accident.

(iii) The 3^rd respondent–insurer filed written statement disputing the liability and contended that as the bus was hired by 4^th respondent-Corporation and no additional premium was paid for such third-party hire, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive.

(iv) The 5^th respondent-Regional Manager of APSRTC also filed written statement, which was adopted by the 4^th respondent, denying the manner in which the accident occurred and contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

(v) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No. AP 27 TY 1881?

2. Whether the deceased Atla Lakshmi Jayasree, died in a road accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

4. To what relief?”

(vi) In order to prove the claim, 1^st claimant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the conductor of the offending bus as P.W.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of respondents, the officer of insurer and officer of 4^th respondent- Corporation were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

(vii) The Tribunal, after exhaustively considering the evidence on record, came to conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus. In reaching the said conclusion, the Tribunal had relied on Exs.A1 to A5, besides the evidence of P.W.2. While coming to the aspect of determination of compensation, basing on Ex.A6- SSC Certificate and also Ex.A3- Postmortem Report, the age of the deceased came to be determined as 18 years. For the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased, though the claimants claimed that her expected income would be Rs.1,00,000/- per month, the Tribunal, considering the totality of circumstances and precedents cited before it, has assessed her monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. By applying the relevant multiplier of 18 and awardin