In a motor accident claim, compensation must be calculated by applying a standard multiplier based on age, adding 40% for future prospects where applicable, and adjusting dependency deductions based on the number of dependents, in the absence of evidence proving contributory negligence.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment, as M.A.C.M.A.No.431 of 2016 preferred by the R.T.C., assailing the quantum of compensation and Cross Objection No.82 of 2025 is preferred by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation, both arise out of the very same award and decree, dated 22.09.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1126 of 2013 on the file of the learned Chairman, MACT-III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal (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 as under:

A) The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 , against the Respondent-Corporation claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the death of Ramakrishna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased respectively, in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.08.2016. It is stated that on that day, while the deceased was proceeding on his scooter, near petrol pump of Wardhannapet village at about 11.45 a.m., the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 36 Z 0130, came from Warangal side towards Thorrur, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed dashed against the scooter of the deceased in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe head injuries and one B.Sudhakar who witnessed the same secured 108 Ambulance and got shifted the injured to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Thereafter, for better treatment, the injured was shifted to Guardian Hospital.

B) During the course of treatment, the deceased died on 17.08.2013. The deceased was aged about 30 years and working as a toddy tapper and agriculturist. The Police also registered a case vide Crime No.246 of 2013 and charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent filed counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. The respondent is denying the age, occupation, avocation, earning capacity of the deceased, medical expenditure incurred and manner of the accident. Hence, respondent, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. To prove the said claim, petitioners examined as PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A6 and on behalf of respondent, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

6. Considering the claim of the claimants, counter filed by the APSRTC and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum to be paid by the respondent.

7. Heard Sri N. Chandrashekar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the RTC and Sri Ajay Kumar Madishetty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, perused the material available on record including the grounds of appeal.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

8. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether there exist any valid and sustainable grounds warranting interference with the impugned Award passed by the learned tribunal?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

9. The