Legal representatives, including non-dependants, possess the locus standi to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as the compensation forms part of the deceased's estate. Courts are duty-bound to award 'just compensation' based on evidence, even if it exceeds the amount originally claimed.

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toagainst the decree and award dt. 13-9-2011 made in MVOP No. 7 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the VIII Addl. District Judge (FTC) Cum Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition filed under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Claim was made for awarding a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of one Eswaramma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident caused by the driver of the tipper lorry bearing No.AP 03 T 3744 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent No.2, while the deceased was travelling in A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 09 Z 7964 belonging to Respondent Nos.3 and 4, before the learned MACT.

3. Claimant No.1 is the daughter and claimant No.2 is the daughter-in-law; claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the grand children, claimant No.5 is the daughter-in law; claimant Nos.6 to 8 are the grand children of the deceased. Husband of claimant No.2 and father of claimant Nos.3 and 4, one Bhaskar, is the son of the deceased, as he died, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the dependents of the deceased, claimant No.5 is the daughter-in-law and claimant Nos.6 to 8 are the children of one T. Gangadharam, son of the deceased. Contending that all the claimants are dependents on deceased and her legal heirs, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- .

4. For the sake of convience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the claimants” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

5. Deceased was aged 55 years, selling milk, attending agricultural work and she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. On the fateful day i.e.12.09.2002 at about 06:15 p.m., she boarded A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 09 Z 7964 to go to Ponnai to attend a function. When the bus was near M.M.N. Nursery Garden on Chittoor-Puttur Road, the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, causing accident, which resulted in serious injuries to the deceased. She was shifted to Government Head Quarters hospital, Chittoor, where she was treated as an inpatient for three days. Thereafter, she was admitted in Bindu Nursing Home, Chittoor as an inpatient. Again, she was admitted as an inpatient for four or five days in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and she died on 31.01.2003.

6. A case in Crime No.111 of 2002 was registered, which was ultimately ended in conviction vide C.C.No.58 of 2003. On admission of guilt, the driver of the offending vehicle as convicted under Section 252 Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (IDSI) for two months for the offence under Section 338 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (IDSI) for one month for the offence under Section 337 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (IDSI) for one month for the offence under Section 279 IPC.

7. Respondent No.1, being the owner and respondent No.2, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, are liable to pay the compensation. Though there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C., respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also liable as the accident occ