HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.638 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellants-claimants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24-01-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.250 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,88,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellants-claimants i.e., wife and children and respondent No.4 i.e., mother, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-04-2016, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, along with his friend by name M.Srikanth, on Hero Honda Activa bearing No.AP-13-AG-2507 from Ramdevguda to Golkonda fort and when they reached near Ashurkana, Golkonda fort, a tourist vehicle bearing No.KL-39H-5958 driven in high speed in rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle due to which, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for post mortem. A criminal was registered vide Crime No.120 of 2016 against respondent No.2 i.e., driver of the crime vehicle under Section 304-A IPC. Stating that the deceased was hale and healthy and working as cable technician at Umar communications, Ramdevguda, Golkonda, Hyderabad and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family and that due to untimely death, the appellants lost their bread winner, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., driver and insurer of crime vehicle filed counters denying the averments of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.4 i.e., mother of the deceased, also filed counter stating that accident took place due to negligent driving of respondent No.2; respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation; and an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- is required to be awarded to her towards compensation as the deceased was sending her Rs. Rs.5000/- per month.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.9,88,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Challenging the same, the appellants- claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that compensation granted by the Tribunal is meager and as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, the appellants are 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 appearing for respondent No.3-insurance company would submit that the compensation has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle and respondent

Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants-claimants and respondent No.4.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, even accepting the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month, the compensation awarded is grossly deficient, as the