IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that future prospects must be considered in compensation calculations for fatal accidents, affirming the principle of negligence in determining liability.

JUDGMENT :

(Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.)

These two appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.49 of 2019 is filed by the appellant/The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.M.A.No.88 of 2019 is filed by the appellants/claimants, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 31.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.903 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short, “the Tribunal”).

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

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 07.09.2016, the deceased Thumma Suresh was proceeding to his house at Kareemabad, Warangal, on his Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP-36-AR-4614, on the way, when he reached Chatrapathi Colony at Hasanparthy at about 20.40 hours, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC4166, parked the lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautions, such as putting on indicators or parking lights. Due to the darkness, the deceased could not observe the said lorry and hit the same. Resultantly, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, on the same day, at about 21.30 hours.

The Police of P.S. Hasanparthy registered a case in Cr.No.196/2016 against the driver of the said Lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-4166 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 44 years, and was earning Rs.40,944/- per month as a Junior Assistant in the Office of Special Deputy Collector, LA, SRSP, State-I & II, Unit-I, Warangal. Hence, the wife and two minor children of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.68,00,000/-. The mother of the deceased was arrayed as respondent No.4.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the said lorry, respectively, filed separate counters denying the allegations made in the claim petition and submitted that respondent No.2 was the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-4166 and respondent No.1 was the driver of the said lorry on the accident date. They denied the accident and involvement of the said lorry. They further submitted that the said lorry was insured with the 3rd respondent, and the policy was in force on the date of the accident. As such, compensation, if any awarded, the same was liable to be paid by the 3rd respondent alone, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No.1, had no valid driving license and further he was not eligible to hold such license. Further, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who rode his motorcycle unmindful of the stationed lorry on the extreme left side of the road. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.

6. Respondent No.4/mother of the deceased also filed a counter stating that the deceased used to provide her a sum of more than Rs.10,000/- per month towards her maintenance, and owing to his demise, she is suffering from starvation. Further, petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased was working as a Government Teacher and earning Rs.40,000/- as salary and petitioner No.2, who is her elder grandson, would get a compassionate appointment in the Department and thus, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and herself. Further, prayed to award 30% of the decretal amount towards compensation in her favour.

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Ex.X-1 to X-3. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but got marked Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, t