The appellant-insurer filed this appeal aggrieved by the order/award dated 30.07.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur (for short, Tribunal) awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act).

2. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Manda Adam learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

3. Pending appeal the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants died and the appeal was abated. Subsequently the daughter of the claimants filed a petition in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5303 of 2014 to set aside the abatement caused on account of death of claimants and M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5304 of 2014 to bring her on record as Respondent No.4 on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as legal heir in the above appeal. Both the petitions are allowed.

4. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant-insurer in nutshell are that the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal gravely erred in considering the scope of Section 163-A of the Act and should have considered that the accident was the sheer and absolute negligence of the deceased rider of the bike including from the manner of accident of bike intruded into the stationed lorry on the left side with blinking lights and so far as the lorry bearing No.AAQ 6678 of the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent, but for the vehicle in use that was riding by the deceased, if at all to fasten liability against the rider since died owner and insurer, if any of the bike and the Tribunal totally exonerating the same, despite showing from Ex.B-2 scene observation report to read Ex.A-2 sketch if at all with it, that the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion as if the sketch shows the vehicle in the middle of the road and as if there were no signal lights or precautions and as if there is total negligence of the driver of the lorry apart from considering the riding of the bike with two pillion riders, hence to exonerate the insurer by allowing the appeal setting aside the award of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the insurer reiterated the same.

5. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal that the award of the Tribunal holds good and for this Court while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere with the trail Courts findings fresh in mind of the facts having recorded evidence, hence to dismiss the appeal.

6. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the award of the Tribunal fixing joint liability holding that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry of 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent under Ex.B-1 policy, is unsustainable and requires interference, if so with what conclusions and with what observations?

2. To what result?

POINT No.1:

7. Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R given by the V.A.O in saying he came to know and rushed to the scene of offence and found dead body of deceased herein and the bike and the stationed lorry at the road near kasepalli Choultry. The report was dated 16.11.1997 at about 10.00 A.M, the accident shown occurred in the intervening night prior to the report. There is no charge sheet filed by the police and it appears police closed the crime as if there is negligence of the deceased bike rider alone. Ex.A-3 is the post mortem report showing multiple injuries and none of crush injuries but outcome of fall and basically the frontal skull injuries and fractures. The M.V.I report not filed in this case by either side. Ex.B-3 statement under Section 162 Cr.