Compensation in death cases must consider future prospects and conventional heads, ensuring just compensation based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the MV Act’) by the appellant challenging the Award dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Mahabubnagar, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.611 of 2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as claim petitioners and respondent.

3. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons, claimant No.4 is the father died during pending O.P., and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased Boki Venkataiah.

4. It is stated in the claim petition that on 12.08.2007 Boki Venkataiah went to Ramakonda Holy place along with one Bhagwanthu, after visiting the said Holy place they were returning back to their village on foot meanwhile at about 10.15 hours Boki Venkataiah observed the arrival of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z- 9858, tried to stop by standing aside the road at KM stone No.20, which was coming from Koilkonda to Mahabubnagar. The driver of the vehicle drove it in rash and negligent manner, dashed Boki Venkataiah, the rear portion of the bus hit him, as a result he fell down underneath the rear wheels of the bus and died on the spot. The deceased Boki Venkataiah was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing coolie work and he was also having agricultural lands at his native place, contributing the income for the maintenance of his family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the petitioners were put to mental agony and lost their earning member of the family, in total they have claimed compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under different heads.

5. Respondent – Corporation has filed its counter and contended that as per the information given by the driver of the bus, the deceased all of sudden tried to cross the road without observing the bus and the bus driver tried to avoid the accident, the negligence was on the part of the deceased only and disputed the age and income of the deceased, in any event the compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 12-08-2007 at about 11 am., on Koilkonda – Mahabubnagar road near KM Stone No.20 was due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9858, by its driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased-B.Venkataiah?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. Claimant No.1 is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2, got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No evidence is let on behalf of the respondents.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the parties has determined the compensation and awarded Rs.3,82,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10- Z-9858. PW2 is not an eye witness to the accident, mere presence of the witness cannot be considered as an eye witness. The Tribunal has purely granted the compensation on guess work and erred in applying the multiplier by taking the age of the deceased as 40 years and awarded Rs.3,82,000/- and prayed to set aside the award dated 16.03.2012.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation and the compensat