HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI M.A.C.M.A.No. 955 OF 2008 JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants/claimants, aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 5.11.2007 passed in MVOP.No.1035 of 2006 preferred this appeal, whereby the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur awarded compensation of Rs.9,78,130/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs while directing the respondents to pay the said amount jointly and severally.

2. The contentions of the appellants/claimants are that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased at 45 years and it ought to have taken the age of the deceased at 43 years and applied the multiplier 15. The Tribunal erred in taking the net salary into consideration and it ought to have seen that some amounts in deductions have to be paid by the legal representatives of the deceased and those are uncleared debts of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects of the deceased who was the salaried employee.

3. (a) The case of the appellants/claimants in brief is as follows: the first appellant/first claimant is the wife, appellants 2 & 3/claimants 2 & 3 are the sons and appellants 4 & 5/claimants 4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased.

(b) While so, on 14.08.2016 at about 11 PM when the deceased and others were coming from Mangalagiri to Guntur in auto bearing No. AP 7TT 5571 and when the said auto reached Sankar Eye Hospital, Pedakakani, on NH.5, the driver drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden breaks as one vehicle which was proceeding ahead of it in the same direction was slowed down, as a result of which, the said auto turned turtle. In the said accident, the deceased-Raghava Rao sustained severe injuries, Immediately after the accident, when all the injured including the deceased were shifting to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital.

(c) Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and drawing salary of Rs.15,350/- per month working as Senior Telephone Supervisor, in BSNL, Guntur. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the appellants/claimants lost their bread winner. The third appellant/claimant is the mentally unsound son and hence he is completely depending on his father-deceased.

(d) The first respondent is the insured and second respondent is the insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 7TT 5571 and hence they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter contending that the appellants/claimants have to prove that the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 7TT 5571 was possessing valid and effective driving licence, said auto has valid permit and, also age and income of the deceased.

5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trail.

1. Whether the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Regd. No.AP 7TT 5571 ?

2. What is the just amount of compensation that the petitioners can be granted ?

3. To what relief ?

6. To prove their respective claims, on behalf of the appellants/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A.3 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were got marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was got marked.

7. Now the point that arises for determination is, whether the Tribunal erred in considering the age of the deceased as 45 years and net salary as his income and applying the multiplier 10.54, and, whether the Award suffers from any legal infirmities.

8. (a) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged 43 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal might have considered the gross salary of the deceased for assessing the compensation payable to the claimants, but it erroneously took