The main legal point established is that in motor vehicle accident claims, the courts may award higher compensation than initially claimed, in the absence of any bar in the Act, to ensure just and reasonable benefit to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 07.09.2007 passed in O.P.No.1653 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under :

4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.06.2006. It is stated that on 09.06.2006 at about 9.30 hours, the deceased boarded the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5218 at Motigalli “T” Junction and at that time the driver of the said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down from the bus, came under rear wheel of the bus and sustained injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and later shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries. It is also stated that the deceased was a tailor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the respondents, who are custodians of the said bus, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. The respondents filed counter denying the averments in the petition including the manner in which the accident took and also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also stated that the deceased tried to catch the running bus, slipped and fell down on the road and hence the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident resulting in death of Mohd. Ahmed occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5218?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the RTC bus was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,92,250/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (6) SCC 347. It is further submitted that though the deceased was getting Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency and prayed to enhance the same.

11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C. submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per annum since no documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased. On the point of future prospects, learned Counsel submits that the matter has been