In motor accident claims, where strict proof of income is absent for a self-employed person, courts may assess earning capacity based on available evidence of business and agricultural activities, while mandating adherence to established Supreme Court precedents for future prospects and standardizing interest rates at 7.5%.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment, as M.A.C.M.A.No.2258 of 2016 preferred by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.2505 of 2017, preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation, both arise out of the very same order and decree, dated 09.12.2015 passed in O.P.No.2686 of 2011 (for short ‘the impugned order’) on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court): City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are:

A) The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rule R/w. Section.140(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of B.Krishna Reddy i.e., the claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased herein, respectively (for short “the deceased”), in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2011. It is stated that on 02.11.2011, the deceased along with his brother-in-law was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 L 5256 as a pillion rider from Swarukpally to Borrapally Village and when they reached near Dhanalakshmi Iron Rod Company at Bonthapally gate, a Tractor bearing No.AP 23 W 7397 and trailer bearing No.AP 07 L 0251, trying to overtake another vehicle rammed into the motorcycle on which, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. As a result, the deceased fell under the wheels of the tractor-trailer and died on the spot. The Police of Jinnaram Police Station, registered a case vide Crime No.163 of 2011 under Section 304(A) of IPC. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, by 108 Ambulance and postmortem was conducted.

B) It is also submitted that prior to the accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and engaged in poultry business apart from having broiler sheds and agriculture. He was a hale and healthy person and used to earn an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. Further, they also contended that the income comes under the category of the agriculture and dairy it is exempted from the Income Tax. The deceased used to look after the maintenance of the family and he had great plans to educate his children and succeed them in life. Since, the old age parents are also depended upon the deceased, the claimants are left with no support both financially and emotionally. Hence, the respondents being the owner and insurer of offending tractor-trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent No.2 contested the claim by filing counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and disputing the age, occupation, avocation, earning capacity, medical expenditure incurred and manner of the accident. Hence, respondent No.2, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. awa