A driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle class license is authorized to operate a transport vehicle if the gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7,500 kg, and compensation in motor accident claims must be calculated on the principle of 'just compensation' including conventional heads.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Introductory:

1. One Shaik Jainabee made a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole [for short „the learned MACT‟], vide M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2011, seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the death of her son Shaik Baji [hereinafter referred as „the deceased‟]. The claim was partly allowed, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- vide order and decree dated 17.01.2012 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.. and other incidental directions.

2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed MACMA No.1531 of 2012. Questioning the liability and quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company filed the appeal in MACMA No.1077 of 2012 and both the appeals are heard together.

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

Case of the claimants:

4. [i] The deceased is the son of the claimant, aged 18 years, working as a Carpenter and Plaster of Paris worker earning Rs.250/- to 300/- per day.

[ii] On 28.01.2011 at about 01.30 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP 27 Y 1857 [herein after referred to as the offending vehicle], reached near petrol bunk on Markapur to Pothily road, the respondent No.1, being driver of the auto hit the lorry which was going ahead, whereby the auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained multiple injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Markapur and was referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. While undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital, Guntur the deceased succumbed to injuries on

01.02.2011.

[iii] Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.

[iv] 1^st respondent is the owner and 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence both are liable to pay compensation.

[v] The deceased was having one minor brother and sister. Since the claimant herein being mother of the deceased, laid a claim and entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

5. The 1^st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte Case of the 2^nd respondent- Insurance Company:-

6. (i) The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, age, occupation, and income of the deceased, death of the deceased due to accident, dependency of the claimant.

(ii) The accident occurred due to negligence to the driver of the lorry.

There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. The petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the Insurance Company of the lorry.

(iii) The driver of the auto is not having an effective driving licence.

There is no valid permit for the auto to ply on the road.

(iv) In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

Issues:

7. Learned MACT framed issues touching the accident and negligence of the driver of the auto and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and its quantification, vide issues No.1 and 2.

Evidence before the Learned MACT:-

On behalf of the petitioner/claimant:

8. (i) Claimant was examined as PW1, she has stated about the accident, death of the deceased due to accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the claimant and her other children on the income of the deceased.

(ii) One Jidugu Rangaiah- PW2, eyewitness to the accident, examined as PW2. He has stated about the accident, negligence of the driver of the auto an