HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.746 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.11.2018 passed in O.P.No.137 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court), Nalgonda (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 Challa Venkatesh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed O.P.No.137 of 2011 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.10.2010. It is stated that on 16.10.2010 while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from Hyderabad to Suryapet and when he reached the outskirts of Peddakaparthi Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 TVA-1463 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from opposite direction. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to KIMS, Narketpally and from there while he was being shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment he succumbed to injuries on the way. It is also stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Medical Representative and earning Rs.12,047/- per month. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants, who are his parents, lost their source of income. The 1^st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. Considering the claim of the appellants and the counter filed by the 2^nd respondent, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.8,73,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. Heard Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that 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 also entitled to the future prospects and also Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under conventional heads.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent 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.12,047/- per month by working as Medical Representative, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and he is an able bodied person. Considering the age and avocation of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with the contents of Exs.A7 and C1 the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. However, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards

future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). From this, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living exp