The court established the necessity of accurately assessing a deceased's income for determining compensation, highlighting the importance of calculating future prospects and addressing familial loss claims.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Adilabad in MVOP.No.31 of 2020, dated 25.03.2021, whereunder the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.23,54,800/- only against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/- in a case of death.

2.1 Appellant No.1 is the wife, appellant No.2 is the son and appellant No.3 is the mother of the deceased Munde Madhav.

2.2 It is stated in the claim petition that on 29.10.2019 Munde Madhav was going on to Gudihathnoor after visiting his in-laws house at Echoda and he reached Mannur village on his motor cycle bearing No.TS-01-EF-2897 at 06.30 p.m., the offending lorry bearing registration No.AP-01-T-3888 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed him from behind, as a result, Munde Madhav fell on the road sustained severe bleeding injury over head and all over the body and died on the spot. The dead body was shifted to RIMS hospital. On the complaint given by Chate Sambhaji a case in Crime No.110 of 2019 was registered for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC against the respondent No.1.

2.3 It is further contended in the claim petition that deceased worked as a lorry driver under one Civil contractor by name Arun, was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.200/- on every working day, he was aged about 30 years, was contributing his entire earnings for the welfare of the family, due to the unfortunate death of the deceased, petitioners have suffered loss and lost their bread winner and their earnings have come to stand still and they claimed Rs.40,00,000/- but due to paucity of money they have restricted their compensation amount to Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter contending that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant and they also disputed the age and earnings of the deceased, false case is registered against them by managing the police and prayed to dismiss the Petition.

4. Respondent No.3 has filed a separate counter contending that the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and in fact accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased who drove the vehicle in a rash manner and came in contact with the offending lorry. The liability of the respondent No.3 is subject to provisions under Sections 147 , 149 and 170 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased Munde Madhav died in the accident that occurred on 29.10.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP01T- 3888 by respondent No.1 or was there any contributory negligence on the part of deceased in riding Motorcycle bearing No.TS-01-EF-2897?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Appellant No.1 was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence is adduced by the respondents nor marked any documents.

7. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence of the parties arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was aged about 30 years, added 40% future prospects and deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier applied is ‘17’ and awarded an amount of Rs.23,54,800/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the original petition (21.01.2020) till the date of deposit or realization with