The court emphasized that compensation must reflect actual income and loss of dependency principles, adjusting awards to accommodate dependents' needs post-accident.

UDGMENT :

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 ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – XIV Additional Chief Judge [Fast Track Court], Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2733 of 2011 dated 16.05.2014.

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 wife, appellant Nos.2 to 4 – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the son and daughters of the deceased G.Padma Rao.

5.1 Appellants – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization against respondents Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

5.2 It is stated in the petition that on 28.07.2011 while G.Padma Rao and his wife G.Kalpana were returning to their residence on a motor cycle after attending funeral ceremony of their relative at Kistapur village, when they reached near Mushroom Company at about 22 hours one DCM van bearing No.AP-37-T-4498 driven by its driver in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of G.Padma Rao from the back side. Padma Rao and his wife G.Kalpana [appellant No.1 herein] fell down and sustained severe injuries and fractures on the vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, G.Padmarao was shifted to nearby Hospital, for better treatment he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing the treatment. On the complaint PS Toopran has registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2011 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. As on the date of accident, deceased-G.Padmarao was aged about 38 years, was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing milk business, agriculture and provisions shop and he used to contribute the same to the maintenance of the family. Due to the death of the deceased- G.Padma Rao the appellants – petitioners have suffered mental agony, shock and hardship and prayed to allow the claim petition as prayed for.

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

6.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the age, income and the manner in which the accident has taken place. It is further contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and the owner and insurer of the vehicle are necessary parties to the proceedings. The compensation claimed by the appellants – petitioners is excessive, arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased Sri.G.Padma Rao, S/o. Isthari, died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM van bearing No.AP 37 T 4498?

2. Whether the petitioners are the LRs of deceased and if so, whether they are entitled for any compensation and what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence.

9. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellants - petitioners with that of Exs.A1 to A5 has partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.10,36,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of