The court established that compensation for loss of life must reflect the deceased's potential earnings and the impact on dependents, emphasizing the need for just compensation.

Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 06.12.2008 in M.O.P.No.1469 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the claimants on account of death of Pothala Hari Krishba (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 30.04.2006, awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-.

2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3) The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that the deceased was studying medicine in GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry. He was aged about 19 years as on the date of accident. On 30.04.2006 the deceased was going on motorcycle bearing No.A.P.31-AK-6933, near poultry farm at Velama Kothuru Village of Tuni Mandal. At about 6-30 a.m., the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing No.A.P.05-AD-9710 and A.P.05-Y-3936 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased received injuries and died. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. They have no other children. The deceased has got bright future. His death caused lot of agony and sufferance to the claimants. The first respondent is owner and the second respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4) The first respondent filed a counter contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the rash and negligent act attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident was happened due to the fault of the deceased.

5) The second respondent filed a counter putting forth the burden on claimants to prove strictly the rash and negligent act attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle and further earning capacity of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants. The contention of the second respondent is also that the compensation claimed is excessive, as such, claim is to be dismissed.

6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trail:

(1) Whether P. Harikrishna died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing NHo.A.P.05-AD- 9710/A.P.05-Y-3936 by its driver? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief?

7) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents.

8) The Tribunal on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- towards compensation. Feeling aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is meagre and it is not sufficient and just, the claimants filed the present MACMA.

9) Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 06.12.2008 in M.O.P.No.1469 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in awarding compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- as against the original claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? POINT:-

10) Sri Jayanthi.S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the deceased was II year medicine student in GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry. He had very good bright career. The accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The tribunal awarded meagre compensation. The tribunal considered the monthly earnings of the deceased on notional basis as that of Rs.4,000/-. In several judgments before other High Cou