JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 30.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.553/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (P.O.A.) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,70,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of G.Krishna in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- on account of the death of G.Krishna, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of petitioners No.2 and 3 and son of petitioners No.4 and 5, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.08.2013. The petitioners subsequently enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,70,000/-.

4. The facts show that on 08.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased G.Krishna left his house on a moped to purchase medicines for his daughter, who was suffering from fever, and while he was returning to his house, and reached near railway fly over of Nellimerla village, the 1st respondent, who is the driver of tractor bearing No.P35W 4877 and trailer bearing No.P35U 9894, drove his tractor and trailer in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, while going from Vizianagarm to Nellimerla, dashed against the deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Police of Nellimerla registered a case in Cr.No.107/2013 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent. The deceased was working as a mason, earning Rs.200/- per day. The petitioners depended on the earnings of the deceased. Due to death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/driver of tractor filed a counter denying the material averments of the petition, contending that when his tractor and trailer reached near Nellimerla fly over on the date of accident, he noticed one person coming on a moped from the opposite direction, in the middle of the road, and he blew the horn, and then the deceased unable to control the speed, dashed against the tractor and trailer, and that there was no negligence on part of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was having a valid driving license and the said vehicle was duly insured with the 3rd respondent under a valid policy and if any compensation is payable, it is payable by the 3rd respondent, but not by the respondents No.1 and 2. The 2nd respondent adopted the counter filed by the 1st respondent.

6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement, resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the 1st respondent was not holding a valid and effective driving license and was not qualified to drive the vehicle, which amounts to a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The 3rd respondent was not supplied with the required documents and particulars of the accident either by the owner or by the police, which amounts to a breach of terms and conditions of the policy and statutory violations. The claim of the petitioners is high, exorbitant, including interest.

7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the driver of the moped or the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer No.AP 35W 4877 & AP35U 9894 in a rash and negligent manner or whether both of them contributed for the accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are