In motor accident fatal cases, the court must calculate compensation by correctly determining the deceased's monthly income, applying a 40% addition for future prospects for persons under 40, and using the appropriate multiplier as per the age of the deceased to ensure just and reasonable compensation.

J U D G M E N T:

1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 24.05.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.1077 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur, awarding compensation of Rs.11,97,400/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, for enhancement of compensation amount.

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tibunal i.e., appellant herein as Petitioner/Clamant and Respondents herein as Respondents.

2. The claim petitioner being the wife of Shaik Khasim Saida (hereinafter referred to as deceased), filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules , claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a for the death of Shaik Khasim Saida in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 23.01.2015.

3. The brief averments of the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal are that – The petitioner is wife of the deceased Shaik Khasim Saida. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 9768 belongs to one Kotha Venkata Rama Satyanarayana and used to earn Rs.7,000/- as salary besides batta and hire commission of Rs.2,000/-, totaling Rs.9,000/- per month and he was contributing his entire income to his family.

i. While so, on 23.01.2015 at about 10.30 PM while the deceased along with Shaik Jani Basha @ Spider Jani were going on a motorcycle near Saibaba Dabha Restaurant on Vinukonda road, Narasaraopet Rural Mandal, the lorry bearing registration No.AP24 W 4699 which was going ahead to them was suddenly and abruptly stopped without any indication, in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver - 3rd respondent, as a result of which, the deceased hit the rear portion of the said lorry and sustained severe injuries leading his instantaneous death and the pillion rider of the motorcycle escaped without injuries. Said accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent and the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Rural police station, registered a case in Crime No.14/2015 against the 3rd respondent i.e., driver of lorry bearing No.AP24 W 4699 for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC and after investigation, police filed charge sheet against the 3rd respondent.

ii. As 3rd respondent caused the accident while he was working under the 1st respondent who is owner of the vehicle and the 1st respondent insured his vehicle with the 2nd respondent, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments mentioned in the petition and pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of 3rd respondent in driving the offending lorry bearing No.AP24 W 4699, but the total negligence is on the part of the deceased who was not observing the vehicles on the road and caused the accident and he has not taken care while driving the motorcycle in highway without wearing Helmet. The 3rd respondent is not having proper, regular, valid and effective driving license to drive the offending lorry and the offending vehicle has no valid registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, and that the offending lorry was not insured with the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company as on the date of accident and there is no valid insurance policy. The