The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the power to review its orders for errors apparent on the record. Furthermore, salary from compassionate appointment and pension are not 'pecuniary advantages' to be deducted from compensation, and appellate courts can enhance compensation to ensure it is 'just' even without a cross-appeal.

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

The challenge in this appeal is against the Orders and Decree dated 04.06.2014, modified on review vide order dated 13.08.2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”) in M.V.O.P. No.601 of 2012. The 2nd respondent (the Oriental Insurance Company Limited), before the learned MACT, filed the present appeal.

2. The 1st respondent before the learned MACT remained ex-parte after filing written statement and he is the 5th respondent herein. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants before the learned MACT.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants/petitioners and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 herein:

4.

[i] One Goddu Gurappa [hereinafter referred as „the deceased‟], aged about 53years, hale and healthy and working as a Watchman in South Central Railway, Kadapa, earning Rs.23,324/- per month While he was travelling on his Honda Activa motorcycle on 02.05.2012 morning to go to Government Polytechnic College, along with the 4th claimant, who was attending Polytechnic entrance Examination and when they reached near Mahila ITI, after crossing Gurukula Patasala on Kadapa to Rajampet main Road, a car bearing No.AP 26 TYTR 3428 [for short „the offending vehicle‟], insured with the 2nd respondent, came in an opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling. Injured were shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, where it was declared that the deceased died.

[ii] A case in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Kadapa Traffic Police Station was registered and charge sheet also laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.

[iii] Claimant No.1 is the wife, and the Claimants No.2 to 4 are the children. They are the legal heirs and dependents on the deceased.

[iv] 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer, of the offending vehicle. Thus, both of them are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

Case of Respondent No.1:

5. Vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. There are no violations of conditions of the Insurance Policy. The 1st respondent is not liable.

Case of Respondent No.2:

6.

[i] Negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident.

[ii] Petition is bad for non-joinder of the Insurance Company of the Honda Activa motor cycle.

[iii] The petitioners shall prove age, occupation and income of the deceased, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and dependency of the claimants.

[iv] The entitlement of the claimants, liability shall be proved.

[v] In any event, quantum of compensation claimed is excessive,

Evidence before the learned MACT:

7.

[i] Claimant No.1- Goddu Gurramma, wife of the deceased as PW.1 stated about the death of the deceased due to the accident, relationship of the claimants with the deceased; age, occupation and income of the deceased. She is not an eyewitness to the accident. She has stated that as per Aadhaar card shown to her, the year of birth of her husband/deceased is 1956 and he was having two years of service by the date of accident. She is getting pension of Rs.9000/- and they have applied for compassionate appointment of her son, due to death of her husband. She has denied the suggestion that salary mentioned in Ex.A6-Salary Certificate is exaggerated.

[ii] PW.2- claimant No.4 is an eyewitness to th