The court affirmed that compensation quantum in motor accident cases should be determined using notional income when evidence is lacking, applying standard multipliers and future prospect percentages as established by Apex Court precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award and decree dated 08.03.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2614 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of one Md. Chand Pasha (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2016 at about 10.30 P.M,. when the deceased was proceeding in his brother-in-law’s auto viz., Md. Wajid, vide auto bearing No.AP-23-Y-3824, who sat in the auto driven by Wajid while they were returning to Kandi village from Isnapur, when the auto reached near Isnapur X road at that time, one Tanker lorry bearing No.TN-28-AP-1665 (hereinafter referred as “crime vehicle”) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the auto of the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and the said tanker ran over him and he died on the spot. P.S. Patancheru, registered a case in Crime No.228 of 2016 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The respondents/claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.

3. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

4. As seen from the material on record, the Tribunal, relying on Ex.A.1 (FIR), Ex.A.2-charge sheet, Ex.A.3-Inquest Report and Ex.A.4- P.M.E. Report held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. This finding of the Tribunal is based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

5. Regarding the quantum of compensation, though P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was a carpenter by profession and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, the claimants failed to adduce any corroborative oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal, placing reliance on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd. , 2011 ACJ 2436 fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Further, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. , 2017 ACJ 2700 the Tribunal awarded 40% towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged below 40 years, and thus arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards his personal expenses and accordingly assessed the monthly contribution at Rs.3,150/-. Thereafter, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation³2009 ACJ 1298, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘18’ for the age group of 21 to 25 years and awarded Rs.6,80,400/- towards loss of dependency (Rs.3,150/- × 12 × 18). Apart from the same, the Tribunal, in terms of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus