ORDER:- The appellants are the claimants/petitioners in O.P. No.411 of 1996 on the file of the Motors Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The 1st claimant is the wife; the 2nd and 3rd claimants are the son and daughter; and the 4th claimant is the mother of one Kanda Venkataiah, who is said to have died in a motor accident on 25.12.1994. The claim was laid seeking compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs.

2. The 1st respondent is the owner of a Tractor and Trailer, while the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. In support of the claim the appellants have examined two witnesses and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.10. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the insurance company got marked the copy of the policy as EX.B.l.

3. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Kanda Venkataiah was returning from Rayanigudem Village to Nalgonda on his scooter bearing registration number A.P. 24-1759. When he reached the outskirts of Aitipamula Village a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration numbers A.P.24-U-91 and A.P. 24-U-92, driven in a rash and negligent manner had hit the scooterist and thus caused the accident. It is alleged that Kanda Venkataiah, who sustained grievous injuries, succumbed to those injuries immediately. It is further said that the deceased Kanda Venkataiah was working as a Junior Assistant with the Tribal Welfare Department of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh at Nalgonda and was drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of his death.

4. The 2nd respondent, who had contested the claim, had disputed the very accident involving the Tractor and Trailer so referred to supra. Therefore, they called upon the claimants to establish that the as accident in question had taken place involving re the said vehicle. The insurance company has also called upon the claimants to establish 01 that it's driver, at the relevant point of 1st time, was having a valid driving licence. dl The 2nd respondent has also alleged that from the nature of the accident, it occurs d as though the scooterist got confused h because of the glare of the headlights of y the oncoming motor vehicles and in the process, contributed wholly to the accident, a and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to seek any compensation from them. It is also further asserted that the owner of the scooter and the insurer of such a motor vehicle are both necessary and proper parties to the O.P. and that in their absence the claim is not liable to be adjudicated at all.

5. The 1st claimant-wife has been examined as PW.1. She narrated the relationship of the petitioners/claimants with the deceased. She did not claim any first hand knowledge to the accident. She deposed that an Attender working with the Tribal Welfare Department, in which department her husband was working as a Junior Assistant, reported about the accident and that is how she came to know of the accident. Therefore, not much turns on the deposition of PW.l, except with regard to the nature of relationship of the claimants appellants with the deceased and the nature of employment of the deceased and that salary and other particulars relevant insofar as the deceased is concerned.

6. PW.2 has been examined as an eye-witness to the accident. PW.2 is a native of Rayanigudem Village. He has deposed that while he and another friend of his, were proceeding on foot around 6.30 p.m. on 25.12.1994, they saw the Tractor and Trailer in question proceeding towards Rayanigudem and, therefore, they solicited its driver to give them lift upto their village, namely; Rayanigudem. PW2 asserted that when the Tractor and Trailer reached the culvert of Aitipamula Village, it had hit a Vespa Scooter coming on the opposite side. But, the vehicle has not been stopped by it's driver. PW.2 has further deposed that the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle had prevailed on him from not disclosing the accident to the police, but however, som

Click Here to Read the rest of this document