This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved over the Award dated 21-4-2008 passed in MVOP.No.566 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one B.Maddileti in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 9-6-2005. It was averred in the claim petition that on 9-5-2005 at about 1.00 p.m. the deceased-B.Maddileti was proceeding in the tractor-Trailer bearing Registration Nos. AP-21V.2919 and AP21V. 2920 as a coolie. While the said tractor was crossing the unmanned railway gate No.137 in between Kumool town and Dupadu Railway Station, it being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the train, as a result of which, the said B.Maddileti died on the spot. It was further averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimants being the dependants on the income of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation.

3. The fifth respondent herein is the owner of the said tractor and trailer.

He remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant herein, being the insurer of the said tractor and trailer, filed the counter before the Tribunal, denying the averments made in the claim petition, the manner of accident, and income of the deceased. It further stated that there was negligence on the part of the railways for keeping the railway gate without any guard to watch the vehicular movements.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues for settlement.

1. Whether the accident that occurred on 9-6-2005 at about 1.00 p.m. at unmanned Railway Level Crossing Gate No.137, in between Kurnool and Dupadu Railway Station, resulting in the death of B.Maddeleti was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer bearing registration No. AP.21V.2919 and 2920 by its driver or was there any negligence on the part of the Railway authorities?

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this petition?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation? It not, to what extent and from whom?

5. To what relief?

Additional Issues:

1. whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try this case and grant compensation?

2. Whether this OP is maintainable or not?

5. In order to prove the claim, On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, RW.1 was examined and Ex. B-1 was marked.

6. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime tractor by its driver, which resulted the death of the deceased and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal took average earnings of the deceased at RS.1,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- on account of loss of dependence. Adding to this, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,91 ,000/-, and directed Insurance Company and owner of the Crime Vehicle to pay the same, jointly and severally, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

7. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

8. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, and, only the Railway Claims Tribunal has got jurisdiction, that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards consortium, and, that the Tribunal failed to