THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

Heard, Sri L. Preetham Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners and Smt. I Maamu Vani, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the Order and Decree dated 27.09.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2017 by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VIII Additional District Judge at Miryalaguda (for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that:

Petitioners filed a claim petition under Section166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.76,68,000/- for the death of one Mr. Bogala Nagi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in a Motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.09.2016. Petitioner No.1 & 2 are the daughters and petitioner No.3 is the wife and petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased.

5. According to petitioners, on 16.09.2016 at about 08:30AM while the deceased was proceeding from his house towards his workplace on his motorcycle bearing no.TS-05-EJ-1497 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) and when he reached near his workplace, suddenly the driver of the lorry bearing no.AP-16-TV-2477 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his motorcycle, as a result, he fell down and the said vehicle then ran over him causing his instantaneous death. As per the report given by petitioner no.3, the Police, Kushaiguda P.S., registered a case in Crime No.593 of 2016 for the offences under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, against the driver of the crime vehicle.

6. Considering the claim of the petitioners and contentions of the respondent-Insurance company and upon due enquiry, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim by awarding compensation of Rs.33,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the Petitioners/Appellants along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

7. The appellants/claimants dissatisfied with the awarded amount have filed the present appeal contending that granting of interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount is erroneous and it should be taken @ 12% p.a. from the date of the accident. Further contended, the Tribunal has not awarded the just and reasonable compensation as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 and sought for enhancement of compensation amount.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent contented that the salary of Rs.20,500/- per month, taken by the Tribunal was solely based on the certificate issued by the company and no appointment letter, attendance register or books of account were produced by the petitioners. Therefore, under erroneous views and facts the Tribunal has granted more compensation than the appellants/claimants are entitled for.

9. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

10. In the view of Ex. A6 salary certificate, this Court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased of Rs.20,500/- per month taken by the Tribunal is valid. As such, the annual income would be Rs.2,46,000/- (Rs.2,46,000 x 12). As the age of

the deceased is 29 years, the future prospects in the view of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra) should be taken @ 40% i.e., 98,400/-. Thus the total of annual income comes to Rs.3,44,400/-. As the deceased had five dependents, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of Rs.86,100/-, the annual loss of income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,58,300/-. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Tr