Compensation in motor vehicle accidents must reflect fair dependency, considering future prospects and not be arbitrary or unjustifiable.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad in O.P.No.795 of 2009, dated 15.05.2012.

2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the Appeal.

4. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the father, appellant No.2 – petitioner No.2 is the mother and appellants Nos.3 and 4 – petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased Cheelapally Venkaiah.

5.1 Appellants – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing petition till realization of full amount on account of the death of Cheelapally Venkaiah, who died in the accident.

5.2 On 14.03.2009 Cheelapally Venkaiah was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-23-V-2931 from Bachepally village to Munigepally village, when the auto reached the outskirts of the Nizampet village at about 01.30 p.m., a tractor bearing No.AP-23-W-7463 along with trailer bearing No.AP-23-W-7464 driven by its driver came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the auto and caused the accident. In the said accident, Cheelapally Venkaiah sustained injuries on his chest, hands and waist, was shifted to Government Hospital, Narayankhed and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. On the date of accident deceased Cheelapally Venkaiah was aged about 25 years, was doing agriculture and Hamali and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the accident, appellants – petitioners have lost their dependency, family income and prayed to allow the O.P.

6.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied age, income, profession and the accident. Further contended that respondent No.1 in collusion with the appellants – petitioners has filed the O.P., burden lies on the appellants - petitioners to prove that the tractor was driven by the driver by possessing valid driving licence and the liability of the insurance company is limited subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of M.V.Act and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP-23-W-7463 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what just amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

8. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – Padma Ravinder, PW3 – L.Govind and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.2 got examined its Senior Assistant (Legal) as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 – copy of insurance policy.

9. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the O.P and awarded compensation of Rs.2,85,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 24.09.2009 till the date of payment holding that respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and then recover the same from respondent No.1.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the appellants in proper perspective, failed to see that the amount claimed by the appellants is reasonable and was rigid in granting amounts though motor vehicle act is a beneficial legislature. The Tribunal failed to see that the appellants – petitioners are agricultural labourer who needs physical fitness in all aspects and failed to award amount on loss of future earnings. Counse