The court modified the compensation awarded in traffic accident claims, emphasizing appropriate future income assessments and adherence to legal standards under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 21.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1049 of 2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”).

2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“APSRTC”) filed an appeal in MFA No.104402 of 2017, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed an appeal in MFA No.102618 of 2018 for enhancement.

4. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal, for convenience.

5. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

HC-KAR

6. The petitioners, on account of the death of one Sri.Rekulakunta Shiva Prasad @ Shiva Prasad, son of petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4, in a road traffic accident, filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, seeking for compensation.

7. The said road traffic accident was occurred on

07.09.2015 while the deceased was travelling in a Bolero Camper pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA.34-B.2536 as a cleaner, from Kondapura towards Tadapathri on National Highway-67, with a load of banana fruits. The APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP.29-Z.1048 came from the Tadapathri side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The deceased was the only bread earner in the family and due to his death, the petitioners have HC-KAR lost their sole bread earner and they were dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence, they pray to allow the claim petition.

8. Respondent No.1 is the driver of APSRTC bus and respondent No.2 is the APSRTC. Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, respondent No.1 has not filed a statement of objections.

9. Respondent No.2—APSRTC filed a statement of objections, denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that the accident took place because of the negligence of the person pushing the Bolero without heeding to the signal, and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

10. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

11. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined petitioner No.1 as PW-1 and marked 8 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-8. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 HC-KAR examined himself as RW-1. The officials of respondent No.1 have not entered the witness box and marked any documents.

12. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition with costs, vide its judgment dated 21.08.2017. It is ordered that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of ₹14,20,000/- in the ratio of 30:40:20:10 together with interest at 8 percent per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the compensation amount in its entirety from respondent No.2 and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the amount in 90 days.

13. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed appeal in MFA No.102618 of 2018 for enhancement and the APSRTC has also filed an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation in MFA No.104402 of 2017.

HC-KAR

14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has t