Compensation for loss of dependency must reflect realistic earnings and consider future prospects, necessitating a recalculation when initial assessments are inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2018, dated 30.11.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- on account of death of 1^st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sheshaiah, (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in accident occurred on 10.11.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2018 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the lorry driver. It is contended that on 10.11.2017, the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler TVS Xcel bearing No.AP-27-7498 and when he reached at the outskirts of Marichetlapalem Village, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818 drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from rear side and dashed to the deceased motorcycle from backside, as a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, as such and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle and seized the said lorry. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as skilled worker in Granite Factory and also used to attend other works after the shift of the deceased from the factory, including agricultural labour on all Sundays. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry and respondent No.3-driver of the lorry remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, file counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that driver of the lorry offending lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818 as well as the deceased who was rider TVS Xcel bearing No.AP-27-X-7498 were both not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicles were not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the deceased Kora Sheshaiah S/o N. Bagaiah died on 10.11.2017 in a road accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

5. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs