An appellate court may enhance compensation in motor accident claims to ensure just and fair award, particularly by accounting for heads of damages such as filial consortium, when the claimant's evidence remains credible and unchallenged.

J U D G M E N T:

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC, challenging the order and decree dated 16.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.184 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,43,600/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred only) to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of death of deceased Nelavala Rajeshin, in a motor accident that occurred on 11.10.2016.

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

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

a) On 11.10.2016 at about 4:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, with his wife as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.AP-26-BG-3591, proceeding towards Allur Mandal from Gundalammapalem Village, when they reached opposite Jai Sri Hanuman Rice Mill on Allur–Nellore Road at Beeramgunta Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, an RTC bus bearing registration No. AP-28-ZS-424, coming from behind at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both the deceased and his wife fell on the road, sustained grievous injuries, and died on the spot. Thereafter, the dead bodies were shifted to the Community Health Centre, Kovur, for post-mortem. After completion of post-mortem, the dead bodies were brought back to their village, incurring transport expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The matter was reported to Allur Police Station, Nellore District, and a case in Crime No.108 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the RTC bus.

b) It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy, and was working as a Security Guard at Krishnapatnam Port, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to his sudden death, the claimants lost their breadwinner, as well as his love and affection. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

04. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent remained exparte.

05. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the age, avocation, and income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants, the manner of the accident, and the allegation of rash and negligent driving. It was further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, that the RTC bus was not involved in the accident, and that the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive, exorbitant, and imaginary.

06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP-28-Z-4242?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and amount?

3. To what relief?”

07. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked.

08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms:

“In the result, this petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of Rs.17,43,600/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs forty three thousand six hundred only) with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit or realization, and out of the compensation awarded, an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only) i