Compensation for loss due to death must equitably reflect the deceased's income and family's dependency, recognizing all legal dependents' right to consortium and care.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in OP No.988 of 2002, dated 24.03.2008.

2. Appellants are the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the respondents in the O.P.

3. Notice got issued to respondent Nos.3 to 5 are served vide office endorsement dated 04.11.2022.

4. Appeal against respondent No.1 is dismissed for default vide Court order dated 13.07.2016, even otherwise he remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization for the death of deceased K.Basavaraj.

5.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife. Appellant No.2- petitioner No.2 is the son. Respondent No.3 is the father and respondent No.4 is the mother. Respondent No.5 is the sister of the deceased K.Basavaraj.

5.3. It is stated in the petition that on 30.08.2002 while Basavaraj was proceeding from Cherlapally on foot towards ECIL Cross Road near Phase-I I.D.A. Cherlapally, one Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP11-V6357 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Basavaraj on his back side at about 8.20 a.m. due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries, he was shifted to Care Poulomi Hospital but he succumbed to injuries on the same day at 5.00 p.m. Deceased Basavaraj was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident and was doing Fruit business, earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation and prayed to allow the O.P.

6. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.5 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

7. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the claim is excessive and the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, prayed to dismiss the O.P.

8. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed their counter and admitted that appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and appellant No.2-petitioner No.2 is the son and these respondents are the parents, they are depending on the income of the deceased and they have one unmarried daughter and they are entitled for legitimate share and prayed to allow the O.P.

9. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP11-V 6357?

2. Whether the accident vehicle was insured with the

2nd respondent and there is any violation of policy conditions?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

10. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-K.Raghu, got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence but got marked Ex.B1-copy of Policy.

11. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the appellants-petitioners with that of the documents marked thereon, awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,600/- to the appellants and respondent Nos.3 and 4 with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the claim of respondent No.5 is dismissed without costs. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the Tr