Compensation based on dependency under Motor Vehicles Act requires proof of financial dependence for claimants to be viable, especially concerning married daughters. Proper assessments must consider personal expenses and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the Insurance Company arising out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.15 of 2018 dated 24.08.2021.

2. Respondent No.1 herein - petitioner No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the sons and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the married daughters of late Mohammed Allauddin.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of the deceased – Mohammad Allauddin, who died on 08.11.2017 in a road traffic accident, against the driver – respondent No.7 herein – respondent No.1, owner - respondent No.8 herein – respondent No.2, Insurance Company – appellant herein - respondent No.3 and the Managing Director TSRTC – respondent No.9 herein - respondent No.4.

4. On 07.11.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., Mohammad Allauddin was going towards new bus stand by walk, the bus bearing No. TS-15-UC-1078 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from behind and hit him, as a result Mohammad Allauddin fell down and received severe multiple injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, from there to Balaji Hospital, later referred to Citizen Hospital and on 08.11.2017 at 1.00 p.m., he succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was aged about 59 years at the time of accident, was hale and healthy, was a retired SI of Police and drawing monthly pension of Rs.35,000/-, also earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing nursery business and in all the deceased used to earn Rs.50,000/- per month, contribute the same to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the claimants have suffered mental pain, agony and lost their love and affection. On the complaint, PS Sangareddy has registered a case in Crime No.247 of 2017 against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and prayed to allow the O.P.

5. Driver and owner (respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein) remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6. Appellant herein - respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that at the time of the accident policy number mentioned by the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein) in the claim petition does not tally with the series of the policy issued by them and for want of correct policy particulars they denied the allegation that the vehicle was insured with them. Driver was not having subsisting licence to drive the bus at the time of accident and they are not aware of criminal case proceedings launched against the driver.

7. TSRTC Musheerabad, Hyderabad (respondent No.9 herein) filed counter, denied the age, occupation, health condition and income of the deceased and also denied the manner in which the accident has occurred. Respondent No.2 (respondent No.8 herein) is the registered owner of the bus and the same is validly insured with the appellant herein – respondent No.3 and they do not have any liability to pay compensation, in view of the fact that they are only custodian of the bus and the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 6 – petitioners is excessive and exorbitant, prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicl