HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.246 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.12.2018 passed in O.P.No.209 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”), the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who are the parents of one late Master M.Aravaind (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed O.P.No.209 of 2017 under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 11.12.2016. It is stated that on that day, the deceased was riding on a tractor bearing registration No. AP-28 DQ 2131, driven by Respondent No.1, to the agricultural fields of his grandfather Linganna in Mitta Nandimalla Village of Narva Mandal for the purpose of ploughing the land and while the tractor was passing through the agricultural land of one Basi Reddy nearby the land of Linganna, respondent No.1 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased, who was sitting on the mudguard by the side of the driver, fell down and the left tyre of the tractor ran over the deceased, which resulted in his death. It is also stated that prior to the accident, the deceased, aged 14 years, was earning Rs.100/- per day by distributing milk packets in the morning hours from door to door in Bekkarpally village. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants, who are his parents, lost their source of income. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 being the driver and the owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and respondent No.3 i.e., the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

3. Considering the claim of the appellants and the counter filed by respondent No.3, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) to the appellants-claimants along with an interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the realization payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed to enhance the same. It is further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹, the appellants are also entitled to the future prospects and also Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under conventional heads.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.

7. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged by the respondents.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day by distributing milk packets, since there wasno

2017 ACJ 2700

satisfactory documentary proof, the Tribunal had rightly estimated the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as