Compensation for loss must consider psychological trauma and family impact, including future earnings and specific losses like 'loss of foetus' due to trauma from the accident.

JUDGMENT :

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.07.2009 passed in O.P.No.2005 of 2006 by the II Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- on account of the death of L.Susheel Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 03.12.2005, by motor vehicle.

3(1) It is stated that on 03.12.2005 at about 4.45 P.m. the deceased was slowly walking on the extreme left side of the mud road on National Highway No.7 in Namakkal district, Tamilnadu, meanwhile a bus bearing No.TN 28J 5563, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and several other injuries. The deceased was taken to CM Hospital, Pulavarpalayam, and thereafter, he was shifted to Gokulam Hospital, Selam, Tamilnadu. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Paramathi Police registered a case in Crime No.316/2005. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. Their main contention was that the crime bus was not having proper valid permit to ply on the road at the time accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the O.P.

5. To prove their case, Pws.1 to 6 was examined and Exs.A1 to A21 was marked for petitioners. On behalf of respondent No.2 no oral evidence was adduced. However, Ex B-1 copy of the policy was marked.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.5,000/-. The deceased was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by running a hotel business in the name and style of ‘Gangotri Tiffin Centre’. Apart from that, the deceased, being a black belt holder in Karate, used to conduct coaching classes in Arya Samaj Maidan, situated at Nagulchinta, Hyderabad. At the time of the accident, the deceased age was 32 years, and the Tribunal had not granted any amount towards Future prospects. It is further submitted that tblack belt holder in Karate, used to conduct coaching classes in Arya Samaj Maidan, situated at Nagulchinta, Hyderabad. At the time of the accident, the deceased age was 32 years, and the Tribunal had not granted any amount towards Future prospects. It is further submitted that tblack belt holder in Karate, used to conduct coaching classes in Arya Samaj Maidan, situated at Nagulchinta, Hyderabad. At the time of the accident, the deceased age was 32 years, and the Tribunal had not granted any amount towards Future prospects. It is further submitted that Tribunal granted a very meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- to petitioner No.1 under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and had failed to grant compensation to petitioner No.2-daughter and Petitioner No.3-father. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled to compensation under head ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of consortium’.