Compensation must consider gross income, future prospects, and insurance liability for driver licensing issues.

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 ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in O.P.No.85 of 2008 dated 27.05.2010.

2. Appellant Nos.1 to 5 herein are the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. Appellant No.5 – petitioner No.5 died during pendency of O.P before the Tribunal.

3. Appellants - petitioners have filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(C) of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the death of Sunkari Shankar, in a road accident with auto rickshaw trolley bearing No.AP-36-W-7699.

4. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children, appellant No.4 – petitioner No.4 is the widowed sister and appellant No.5 – petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased - Sunkari Shankar.

5. Sunkari Shankar was aged 42 years, was working as General Mazdoor, Godavarikhani 10 Incline R.G.-III area with a salary of Rs.15,094/- at the time of accident [01.01.2008], was also doing agriculture in the lands owned by him and earning an amount of Rs.60,000/- per annum.

6. On 01.01.2008 Sunkari Shankar left the house to attend second shift duty on his bicycle to 10 Incline. At about 03.00 p.m., while he was crossing 10 Incline main road and was proceedings on the extreme left side of the road, at that time auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-36-W-7699 belongs to respondent No.1 driven by its driver, came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the bicycle of the Sunkari Shankar. Due to the said impact, Sunkari Shankar fell on the road, received head injury, brain came out and died at the spot. On the complaint lodged, a case in Crime No.1 of 2008 is registered against the driver of the vehicle under Sections 304 -A and 337 of IPC . Deceased - Sunkari Shankar was having 18 years of service and due to his sudden death, petitioners have suffered personal and emotional loss and also the dependency. The deceased would have earned Rs.32,60,304/- by the date of his retirement. As per the company Rules there is an increase in the salary for every five years as per the Wage Board Reports and thus, the appellants - petitioners claimed Rs.18,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

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

8. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the age, avocation and manner in which the accident has occurred. Further it is contended that driver of the crime vehicle do not posses valid driving licence at the time of accident, which amounts to the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the amount claimed by the appellants- petitioners is excessive.

9. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-36-W-7699 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation and if so to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

10. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 – Udutha Bakkaiah (eye witness), PW3-Thati Uppaiaiah (eye witness) and PW4-B.Ramnarayana [clerk of GDK 10 incline] and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Legal manager of respondent No.2 is examined as RW1 – K.Raghubabu and also examined RW2 – G.Prabhakar Reddy, Clerk, Regional Transport Office, W