Compensation for fatal accidents must consider future earnings and legal principles for assessment, with insurers liable under certain circumstances even if a driver lacks a valid license.

JUDGMENT :

(TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.)

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 19.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.720 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 03.05.2015 at about 9.30 A.M. the deceased was going on a Tractor (Water tanker) bearing No.AP-29-V-9456 and 9455 in order to go to Dammaiguda for attending work on water tanker and when they reached near Dammaiguda at about 9.30 A.M., the driver of water tanker drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, due to which the water tanker turned turtle and the deceased sustained injuries to his left hand and legs and blunt injury in the stomach. He was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 18.05.2015. Thus , the petitioner sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the occurance of the accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased and further contended that the driver of the water tanker did not have valid driving license on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred on 03.05.2015 at about 09.30 A.M. while deceased was proceeding on tractor to Dammaiguda for attending work on water tanker was due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of water tanker bearing No.AP-29-V-9455 AND 9456 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and If so, to what quantum and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent No.3 RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

8. Heard Sri C. M. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount of compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and he further submitted that the deceased was an agricultural labourer, earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month but the Tribunal has taken the income of deceased to be very meager i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month and has awarded very less amounts under various heads. He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay compensation and that even if the driver did not have any valid license, the Tribunal ought to have ordered for pay and recovery.

10. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the principle laid down in Ramachandrappa’s case by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to earnings to be taken in case of labourers who do not have any proof may be followed. He further submitted that the petitioner was travelling on the water tanker as a gratuito