Claimants are entitled to compensation based on minimum wage notifications and future prospects, even in the absence of comprehensive proof of income. Interest rates on compensation are discretionary, guided by current judicial standards.

JUDGMENT :

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.08.2016 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.528 of 2013, the Appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are as under:

a) The petitioners/claimants, who are the wife and children of Pathlavath Lokya @ Rukya @ Lukya (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed a claim petition under Section 166-C of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. It was pleaded that on 13.06.2013 the deceased, who was working as a Supervisor in Vijaya Textles, Rajapur, while proceeding to his work-place from his house along with another worker on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 09 CH 0206 on NH-44 road and when they reached Rangareddyguda Villagen near Devula Thanda Cross Roads, a Volvo Bus bearing registration No.AP 28 TD 4040 coming from Hyderabad side towards Kurnool dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. As a result, the deceased and the pillion rider fell on the road and the deceased died on the spot. The pillion rider also succumbed to injuries at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment.

b) The deceased was alleged to have been working as Supervisor in Vijaya Textiles, Rajapur earning Rs.8,000/- per month apart from a daily batta of Rs.200/-.

c) The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2 and the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 was valid and in force as on the date of the accident.

4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed a counter in response to the above averments, inter alia denying the averments and mainly contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the alleged loss if any said to have been incurred by the respondent No.1. It was further contended that the compensation as claimed by the claimants is excessive and arbitrary. Thus, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

II. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

5. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

III. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.15,60,760/- as compensation to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 preferred the present Appeal.

7. Heard Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counse