A married daughter is a legal heir entitled to claim compensation for a parent's death; the Claim Tribunal must ensure just compensation, irrespective of claim limits.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 18.04.2013 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2010.

2. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is filed by the second wife of the deceased assailing the award dated 18.04.2013 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2010.

3. Heard arguments of Sri N.Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 in .

4. Heard arguments of Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company in .

5. The following facts are required to be noticed:

An unsuspecting Tupakula Raju @ Stalin aged 45 years was sleeping in front of his own house in Winchipet, Vijayawada at 4:30 A.M. on 17.10.2009. The driver of milk van bearing registration No.AP-16-T-9663, while driving the vehicle was supposed to have the requisite focus on the road in manoeuvring his vehicle safely. However, his negligence allowed the vehicle to run over the chest of the sleeping man and caused serious injury and the injured was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and thereafter to Government General Hospital, Guntur where he succumbed to injuries on 22.10.2009. Vijayawada II Town Police Station registered Crime No.354 of 2009 against the driver of the offending van. During his lifetime Sri Tupakula Raju @ Stalin was a public health worker in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation earning a monthly salary of Rs.6,728/-. His married daughter and his mother showing the second wife of the deceased as respondent No.3 filed M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alleging that the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 and the insurer of it/respondent No.2 have to pay compensation. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to appear and contest. Respondent No.2-insurance company denied the liability and questioned that the compensation claimed was excessive and that there was no driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and that amounted to breach of insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of the claim.

6. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 and the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were available for consideration before the Claims Tribunal.

8. After a detailed analysis of the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the death of Sri Tupakula Raju @ Stalin. From the evidence of RW.2, a Junior Assistant working in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Ex.A.3-salary certificate it concluded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,728/-. 1/3^rd of it was deducted towards his possible personal and living expenses. Considering his age and the ruling in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [(2009) 6 SCC 121] multiplier ‘14