The case reinforces that income of a deceased with multiple occupations should be assessed based on evidence and guesswork, that contributory negligence must be proven and not assumed even with triple riding, and that compensation can be enhanced beyond the claimed amount to ensure just compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the order passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in MVOP.No.1425 of 2016 dated 28.04.2018.

2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents in MVOP.No.1425 of 2016.

3. Notice got issued to respondent No.1 in the appeal is served, but none appeared.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants – petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the deceased has contributed 25% and the driver of the lorry has contributed 75% and wrongly apportioned the compensation, wrongly assessed the evidence of PW1 with that of Exs.A1 to A5, erred in fixing 25% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, failed to appreciate that the respondents failed to examine the driver or any other persons who are the best persons to speak about the manner in which the accident has taken place, wrongly came to a conclusion that the deceased was riding the motorcycle with three pillion riders by contravening the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, failed to notice that the appellant Nos.3 and 4 - petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are aged about four years and one year respectively and they are children and failed to appreciate that merely because more than one pillion rider ipso facto cannot be presumed that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle without there being any evidence to show that overload is the cause of the accident. The learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased on higher side, wrongly applied multiplier and awarded less compensation, wrongly taken the income of the deceased on the lower side without appreciating the facts that the deceased was doing business in kirana and general stores, cloth business and was also a mechanic for radios and televisions as he had undergone training and also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A6 to A8 and the oral evidence of PW3. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) In R.D.Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Others¹1 1995 ACJ 366, (ii) Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others²2 2009 ACJ 1725, (iii) Meera Devi and another vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others³3 2014 ACJ 1012, (iv) Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others⁴4 2019 ACJ 559, (v) Mohammad Siddique and another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others⁵5 2020 (1) ALD 231 (SC), (vi) Anita Sharma and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another⁶6 2021 ACJ 17, (vii) Rahul Sharma and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others⁷7 2021 ACJ 1430, (viii) Anjana Narayan Kamble and others vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another⁸8 2023 ACJ 346, (ix) Pratima Hari Goanker and others vs. Deepak Singh and others⁹9 2023 ACJ 2578, (x) Vethambal and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Others¹⁰10 2024 ACJ 716, (xi) Ranjeet and another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another¹¹11 2025 SCC Online SC 497, (xii) Dhannalal (died) through LRS vs. Nasir Khan and Others¹²12 2025 ACJ 2816, (xiii) Mallesh M. vs. Lingaraju M. and another¹³13 2025 ACJ 2826, (xiv) Sebati Nath and Others vs. Shriram General I