The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in determining the quantum of compensation and the entitlement of the claimants to future prospects, parental consortium, and filial consortium in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.12.2006 passed in O.P.No.2360 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil 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 be hereinafter 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 against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Srinivasa Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 26.09.2003, the deceased and his friend M.Srinivas, were coming Khairatabad towards Ameerpet on their respective vehicles and the deceased was driving Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP BA 3727 and when they reached near Erramanzil Colony, a TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 9 W 5295 took a sudden right turn in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained head injury and the driver of the TATA Sumo fled away. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was declared brought dead. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.1472 of 2003 has been registered against the driver of the TATA Sumo. It is also stated that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income, and therefore, they filed claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.20.00 lakhs. It is further stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the TATA Sumo, the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said TATA Sumo are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the said TATA Sumo, remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the said TATA Sumo, filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is mainly contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and as such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

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

(1) Whether the accident took place on 26.09.2003 at about 12.30 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP 9 W 5295 by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

8. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy was marked with consent.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.5,66,250/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed the present appeal.

10. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits 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. It is further submitted that since the dependents are five in number 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd. It is also submitted that the claimants 2 and 3, who are the children, ought to have been granted