1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioners-claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 19.04.2010 passed in MVOP No.263 of 2008 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was awarded to the petitioners.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are briefly as follows:

4. On 03.12.2007 Chakali Narsimhulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) along with Gopal Reddy and Mogulaiah was proceeding to Nallamapalli from Jahirabad on his scooter bearing registration No.AP 23 E 3580. When they reached near RTC colony of Pasthapur, Jahirabad Mandal, a tractor trolley bearing No.AP 23-T-2404 and 2405 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the crime vehicle’) came in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took turn to overtake another vehicle. In that process, the rear portion of the trolley dashed the scooter being driven by the deceased. The deceased and Gopal Reddy fell down and died on the spot and Mogulaiah sustained injuries in the said accident. The Station House Officer, Jahirabad police station registered a case in Cr.No.271 of 2007 under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the tractor. The case of the petitioners is that by the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. as building centering labour. As on the date of accident, the offending vehicle which belongs to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent. First petitioner is wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are children and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased and that they are dependants on the income of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- from the respondents.

5. The first respondent who is the driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The second respondent – insurer filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition, inter alia contending that the first respondent knowing fully well that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, entrusted the crime vehicle to him and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle to cause the accident. As per the records, the deceased had driven the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to an unknown vehicle from behind and died. The police foisted a false case against the driver of the tractor and trolley in collusion with the petitioners. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners under various heads is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, at what quantum and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the scooter i.e. the deceased as well as the driver of the tractor and trolley and fastened the liability in the ratio of 25 : 75 a