The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation, empowering courts to award compensation exceeding the claimed amount. Furthermore, for young deceased persons, future prospects must be added to the notional income to determine just compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants against the Award and Decree dated 22.11.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.964 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,21,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum for the death of one P.Krishna Kanth (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 21/22.02.2013 at about 00:20 hours, the deceased, aged about 22 years, while proceeding on a motorcycle near Raghavendra Tiffin Centre, at Alkapuri X Road, was hit by a lorry bearing No.AP-24-TA-3449, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed. As a result, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over him, leading to his instantaneous death. A case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants, being the parents and sister of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.14,21,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased, who was a final year B.Tech student with promising job prospects, at a low figure of Rs.12,000/- per month; failed to add future prospects; applied excessive deduction towards personal expenses; and awarded inadequate compensation under conventional heads, thereby resulting in a meagre award.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2– Insurance Company contended that, in the absence of reliable proof of employment, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income, applied appropriate deductions and multiplier, and awarded just and reasonable compensation, warranting no interference.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the evidence of the eyewitness coupled with the police records, including the FIR and charge sheet, establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. The respondents have failed to adduce any cogent evidence to rebut the said finding. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was solely responsible for the accident, and the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal.

6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was a final year B.Tech student. The Tribunal has taken his notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month in the absence of proof of employment, which this Court finds reasonable. However, the Tribunal failed to add any amount towards future prospects. Having regard to the age of the deceased and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ¹(2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court is of the considered opinion that