Court determined that future economic prospects must be considered in compensation for deceased students, rejecting inadequate initial income assessments and setting a new monthly value.

JUDGMENT:

Claimant preferred present appeal dis-satisfied with the order, dated 03.05.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.222 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, awarding compensation of Rs.11,07,000/- on account of death of her son.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows:

(a) Initially, claim came to be instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for death of her son, who was pursuing third-year M.B.B.S. course. While, on 08.03.2007 he along with his friend were going to College on motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 5 AA 4395 being pillion rider, lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 V 1010 driven by its driver dashed the motorcycle, resulting in the rider succumbing on spot. The pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and was shifted to hospital, where he succumbed on 09.03.2007. Mother of pillion rider filed present claim for compensation of Rs.15.00 Lakhs on the basis that the deceased was pursuing third-year M.B.B.S. course at ASRAM College, Eluru, and had a bright future prospects and with expectation to earn upto Rs.1.00 Lakh per month. The incident was reported to Police and Crime came to be registered and after due investigation even charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry.

(b) Driver of the lorry and insurer contested the claim and present owner and previous owner of offending lorry remained ex parte. The driver of the lorry filed written statement denying that he was negligent and accident occurred due to his rash driving, rather the rider of the motorcycle, having lost control has dashed the lorry and therefore, he is not liable for either negligence or he mulcted with any liability.

(c) Similarly, the insurer also filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident had occurred and that the driver of the lorry was responsible and negligent in causing the accident. Further, even the age, income and claim made were denied and disputed.

(d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues:

“1. Whether the accident dt.08.03.2007occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP16V 1010 by the 1^st respondent?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent riding of the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP5AA 4395 by its rider?

3. Whether the rider of motorcycle was not having valid and proper driving license at the time of accident?

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, i.e., rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP5AA 4395?

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

6. To what relief?”

(e) In order to substantiate the claim, the claimant got examined as PW.1 and examined Vice Principal of the Medical College as PW.2; the doctor, who treated the injuries, as PW.3 and an eyewitness to the accident as PW.4 and lastly, classmate of deceased, who completed the course in the said College and working as Senior Resident of Dermatology Department of Asram Hospital as PW.5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. For the insurer, the Branch Manager of the company was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.X1 and X2.

(f) Answering Issues 1, 2 and 4 together, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent