THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1279 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

31.10.2016 at about 10:30 hours when the deceased was returning home from Cherlapally on motor bike bearing No.AP-20-AN-7547 and when he reached Ganesh Temple kaman, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Cherlapally, the driver of Nano Car bearing No.AP-11-AS-3976 proceeding from HCL to Cherlapally, driven his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants have sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company opposed the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of Nano Car does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He also contended that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the car driver, but it occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6) Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident that occurred on 31.10.2016 at about

10:30 hours near Ganesh Temple Kaman, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of Nano Car bearing No.AP-11-AS-3976 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what quantum and from whom ?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked with consent.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.17,20,000/- Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in determining the compensation. He further argued that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased and has failed to award 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged about 36 years. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted meagre amount of compensation and thus prayed to enhance the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others¹ may be followed in awarding future prospects.

11. Based on the above submission, this Court frames the following points for determination:-

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

12. Point No.1:

a) The grievance of the claimants is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. It is their case that the deceased used to work as a Helper in Sai Teja Papers and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of their claim they got examined PW3 and got marked Ex.A6/Salary Certificate. A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is issued by the Managing Partner of Sai Teja Papers, certifying that the deceased Siyadri Prasad worked as a helper in their godown for the past 13 years till his death in the mo