THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.381 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal (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 the deceased-Ratan Singh was going as a pillion rider on Honda Unicorn Motorcycle bearing NBo.TS-03-EH-0935, when they reached Old Poultry Form, Gopa Thanda, a Santro Car bearing No.AP-36-H-7799 coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed their bike, as a result of which, the deceased-Ratan Singh and the rider of the bike sustained injuries and Ratan Singh died on the spot. Thus, claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 filed counter denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the respondent No.1.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has also filed its counter denying the material averments in the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased and has further contended that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident, and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He has further contended that there is one day delay in reporting the matter to the Police creating a doubt with regard to the occurrence of the accident.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 31.03.2015 was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Santro Car bearing No.Ap-36-H-7799?

2. Whether the policy was in force and valid on the date of accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?

4. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,16,000/-. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the future prospects have not been awarded by the Tribunal and also that very low amount was awarded under the heads of loss of consortium. Therefore, he prayed to consider the said two aspects and enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted to consider the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1, by the Apex Court, while considering the aspects of future prospects and loss of consortium. He further brought it to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,16,000/-, while the petitioners claimed only Rs.10,00,000/-.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. If so, to what extent?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) The grievance of the claimants is that the Tribunal has not considered the addition of income towards future prospects. As per the law laid down by National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, by the Apex Court, addition has to be made with regard to future prospects, while computing the compensation. In the present case, the de