Compensation for wrongful death in motor accidents must reflect just and reasonable amounts, taking future prospects and expenses into account.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. Both MACMA Nos. 1131 of 2012 and 1611 of 2012 are directed against the award and decree dated 12.01.2012 passed in M.O.P.No.839 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short “the learned MACT”).

2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, representing A.P.S.R.T.C. before the learned MACT, are the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1131 of 2012 and the claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1611 of 2012.

3. Respondent No.1 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1611of 2012, who is respondent No.4 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1131 of 2012 is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 1901 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and he is a proforma party in these appeals. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

5. One Allada Thrinadaharao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3. On the fateful day i.e. 25.06.2006, while the deceased was proceeding on his scooter near Marripalem, the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus / offending vehicle, driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter form behind, whereby the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam and from there to St. Joseph"s Hospital, Visakhapatnam and thereafter to Surya Hospital, Visakhapatnam. But, on 29.04.2007, he succumbed to the injuries. A sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was spent towards the medical expenditure.

6. A case in crime No.105 of 2006 was registered for the offences under sections 338 and 304-A of IPC and subsequently the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted.

7. The deceased was aged "44" years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as an Operator in A.P. Beverages, IML Depot, Visakhapatnam and he was contributing his entire income to the family. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost all support of the deceased.Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

Case of respondents:

8. The petitioners shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the RTC bus / offending vehicle, death of deceased due to accident, age, occupation, income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants.

9. Further, the respondents (appellants) claimed that negligence of the deceased in riding the scooter is cause for the accident. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation and the petition is fit to be dismissed.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10. By relying on the evidence of PW.6, eye witness to the accident and the crime record covered by Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A14-charge sheet filed under Section 338 IPC and Ex.A15 charge sheet filed altered to Section 304 -A and also referring to the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the RTC bus, the learned MACT found that the negligence of the driver of the bus is the cause for the accident and that the deceased died due to the said accident. Further, by referring to the age of the deceased i.e. "44" years, as mentioned above in post-mortem certificate, the evidence of P.W.2, the Accounts Officer where the deceased was working, Ex.X1-Salary Certificate, Ex.X2-Service Register and after adding future prospects and after referring to medical bills covered by Ex.A7, Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 and also the evidence of