In a compensation claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the addition of future prospects to the deceased's income is impermissible as the compensation must be determined strictly based on the structured formula prescribed in the Second Schedule.

JUDGMENT:

The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 27.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.468 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,54,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Four thousand only) to the petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Yellagoud Ramalinga Goud, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.06.2012.

02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows:

On 10.06.2012, after loading goods at Bethamcherla in Andhra Pradesh, the deceased, who was working as a driver of the truck bearing No.AP 21-W-3105, proceeded towards Vasai via the Mumbai–Agra Highway along with the cleaner, namely Nagendra Babu, K. Narasaiah, for the purpose of unloading the said goods at Vasai. On the same day, at about 1:20 a.m., when the said truck reached near Mintu Dhaba within the limits of Kandali Village, the deceased, while driving the said vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a vehicle proceeding ahead of it. As a result, the truck turned turtle on the roadside. Consequently, the deceased, Yellagoud Ramalinga Goud @ Yella Goud Mitta, along with the cleaner, got trapped in the cabin of the truck and sustained grievous bleeding injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Based on the report given by Dinesh Dhondu Kadam, Station House Officer, Padgha Police Station, Thane Rural, a case was registered against the driver of the truck for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A , 279, 337, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

04. The claimants contended before the Tribunal that, at the time of the accident, the deceased, who was the driver of the truck, possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. He was hale and healthy and aged about 25 years. He was working as a heavy transport vehicle driver and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-, apart from batta of Rs.200/- per day. He was contributing his entire income towards the maintenance of the petitioners. It is further contended that, due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners were put to great mental shock and agony, as they lost their sole breadwinner, and are now leading a miserable life. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

05. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and contended that the amounts claimed under various heads are imaginary, exaggerated, and made only to suit the claim, and that the compensation sought is highly excessive. It is further contended that the liability of the 2nd respondent is subject to proof that the deceased was employed under the 1st respondent and was working as a driver of the truck bearing No. AP21-W-3105 at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent also alleged that the 1st respondent has colluded with the petitioners and is not properly contesting the claim. In its additional counter, the 2nd respondent contended that the petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts, and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as evidenced by the police records under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the owner of the vehicle did not pay any additional premium t