Negligence in fatal motor accidents must be established on preponderance of probabilities; compensation can be awarded beyond the claimed amount to ensure just and reasonable recompense for claimants.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. The 2 respondent in M.V.O.P.No.216 of 2011 questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded under order and decree dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal [‘for short ‘MACT’] filed the present appeal.

2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the respondent No.5 herein is the owner of the offending vehicle, arrayed as respondent No.1 before the learned MACT.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

The case of the claimants:–

4. [i] One Bala Subrahmanyam [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] is the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 to 4. On the fateful day i.e., on 16.01.2010, the deceased while returning on his motor cycle after attending duty, at about 7.30 p.m. near Shakti Petrol bunk, Nandyal within the limits of Nandyal Taluk Police Station, one TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP 04 A 6633 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’] came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, causing the accident and instantaneous death of the deceased.

[ii] A case in Crime No.09 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304 -A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheeted was also laid.

[iii] The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, employed by the 1st respondent and the vehicle nd was insured with the 2 respondent. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

[iv] The deceased was working as Development Officer, Grade-I in Union India Insurance Company Ltd./2nd respondent and was drawing a salary of Rs.38,282/- per month. The sudden death of the deceased made the claimants as orphans and they deserve reasonable compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. The case of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company/appellant :-

6. There was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle, said driver did not possess valid and effective driving license and the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

7. [i] Learned MACT considering the evidence of eye witnesses and documents covered by Exs.A1 to A5, believed the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, while discarding the evidence of RW.1 on the ground that he is not an eye witness to the accident.

[ii] While imposing the liability, learned MACT found that the absence of driving of license to the driver of the offending vehicle is not proved by the Insurance Company and no other violations are shown.

[iii] While quantifying the compensation, considered the net salary of the deceased as Rs.26,307/- per month with reference to Ex.X1-Salary Certificate rd and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenditure, taken the contribution @Rs.17,538/-; adopted multiplier ‘11’ and awarded a compensation of Rs.23,30,016/-.

[iv] Learned MACT considering that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are not dependents, allowed the claim against the claimant No.1 alone. However, it was also observed that the death benefits are received and pension is also drawn for a sum of Rs.10,944/- by the claimant No.1.

Arguments in the appeal :-

For the appellants:-

8. [i] Ex.A1-FIR revealed that there is an unknown vehicle. Therefore, the involvement of the offending vehicle TATA Sumo bearing