IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for loss of dependency must reflect the deceased's potential earnings and future prospects, ensuring just compensation for claimants.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sree Sudha, J.

These appeals are filed against the Order dated 19.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.1568 of 2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1568 of 2014 was filed by the petitioners/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased S.Santhosh Kumar, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.02.2014. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.222 of 2019, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has also preferred an appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2354 of 2019 against the same Order disputing their liability and requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

4. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2014, the deceased Santhosh Kumar, was proceeding on a bike along with his friend, as a pillion rider. When they reached near Katta Maisamma Temple, outskirts of Gundala, Nalgonda District, the rider of the motor cycle drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed one TVS XL moped, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell down, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad on the same day. The police registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 2014 and filed a copy of the inquest under Ex.A3 and a copy of the Charge sheet under Ex.A2.

6. The petitioner No.2 was examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. One Hemavathi (Administrative Officer) was examined on behalf of the respondent No.2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance company mainly contended that the owner/insured was riding the motor cycle in triple riding, which is not only against the rules of M.V.Act, but also responsible for the death of the pillion rider, as such insured alone is liable to pay compensation. When the accident took place in the opposite direction, in the middle of the road (according to the sketch plan) and when P.W.2 clearly stated that there are speed breakers at the place of accident and when it is not the plea of the petitioners that the insured motor cycle came in wrong direction and dashed the deceased, who was on moped, the trial Court ought have consider the contributory negligence of 50% on both of them. He also contended that Ex.B2-M.V.I Report clearly shows that accused driver also the owner of the vehicle was not having driving license, as such the tribunal ought to have exonerated the liability of the insurance company and further contended that the deceased was a student and not a earning person. The tribunal arbitrarily taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month for granting compensation and awarded excess compensation. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that trial Court has taken the income of the deceased on the lower side without considering the evidence of P.W.1 and educational qualification certificates marked under Exs.A5 to A7 and also interest was granted at lower side. Apart from that less amount was granted under loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and also failed to grant filial consortium and thus requested the Court to modify the Order of the trial Court.

9. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance Company mainly contended that accused driver and also the owner of the Moto