The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation; courts must take a pragmatic approach in assessing income for informal sector workers and ensure just compensation, which includes providing parental consortium to minor children in addition to spousal consortium for the surviving spouse.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter “Tribunal” for brevity) in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2014 by the order and decree dated 09.07.2019, the petitioners have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) from the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the death of one “Shaik Mahmud Pasha” (hereinafter ‘deceased’ for brevity). Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 05.09.2013, the deceased left his house on his motorcycle to install flexi of Jagadamba Cloth Show-room. After completion of work, while he was proceeding to Karimnagar on the motorcycle and when he reached near Alugunur bridge at about 6:00 P.M., a lorry bearing No.MH-06-HC-0663 driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from opposite direction. Due to the same, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

4. Based on a complaint, Police-L.M.D Colony P.S., registered First Information Report No.179/2013 under Section 304-A of I.P.C. against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.MH-06-HC-0663 and after investigation filed Charge Sheet.

5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and was engaged in the work of installing flexies (digital advertisement printed on vinyl sheets) and stage decorations and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection, and were left in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) against all the respondents jointly and severally.

6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the petitioners and materially contended that respondent No.2 got insured the crime vehicle by respondent No.3 and the policy was subsisting at the time of accident. Respondent No.1 was holding valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with costs.

7. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, relationship of petitioners with the deceased, negligence, involvement of crime vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and called for strict proof of the same. It was contended that the recklessness and negligence of driver of the said lorry alone caused the collision between the crime vehicle and the motorcycle of the deceased. Further, the police complaint was filed after a lapse of one day and ser