The court adjusted the compensation for fatal accident claims based on the deceased's income and future prospects, emphasizing a holistic approach to negligence and entitlement under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. The claimants in O.P.No.674 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur (for short “the learned MACT”) are the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2277 of 2013 and the respondent therein is the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.724 of 2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.

3. The claimants/appellants are questioning the adequacy and sufficiency of compensation of Rs.15,84,000/- awarded as against the claim made for Rs.40,00,000/-.

4. The respondent is disputing the compensation awarded as excessive, while denying the liability on the grounds of absence of negligence and non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. Since both the appeals arise out of the order dated 02.12.2011 in the same case, both appeals are heard and are being decided together.

Case of the claimants:

6. (i). Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are children and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are father-in- law and mother-in-law of one Meda Venkata Supraja alias M. Supraja (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)

(ii). On 18.08.2008 at about 05:30 am, the deceased was proceeding in a car bearing No.AP 04 U 2444 with her husband to Tadipatri. When the car reached near Molakavemula Cross, A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3390 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came in the opposite direction from Anantapur in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver and dashed the car in which the deceased was travelling, whereby the accident occurred. The exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. The driver of the car died on the spot. The deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

(iii). A case in Crime No.42 of 2008 was registered for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted.

(iv). The further case of the claimants is that the husband of the deceased died due to the depression following the death of deceased. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 became orphans. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are taking care of petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

(v). Had the deceased been alive, she would have contributed her entire income to the family and for the maintenance of all the petitioners.

(vi). The further case of the claimants is that the deceased was very bright and brilliant. She was running business in the name and style of M/s. Jayalakshmi Fried Gram Industries, Tadipatri, at Door No.8-142-1, Bankamadi Street, Tadipatri and she was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum.

Case of the respondent:

7. (i). The claimants shall strictly prove all the allegations as to accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of deceased due to the accident, age, occupation, income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants / petitioners etc.

(ii). It is claimed by the respondent that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the driver of the car alone was responsible for the accident. There was no valid driving license for the driver of the car. The petitioners ought to have added owner and the Insurance Company of the car as parties. The case was foisted against the driver of the offending vehicle