JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Anantapuramu, challenging the award dated 18.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.709/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Ananthapuramu, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the respondents/claimants who are the parents, wife and children of the deceased Tadimarri Surya Prakash @ Suri,

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

3. As seen from the record, the petitioners filed an application U/s.140, 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of Tadimarri Surya Prakash @ Suri, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioners 2 and 3, and son of petitioners 4 and 5, in a road accident occurred on 20.07.2010 while the deceased was going on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AE 3485 from Kotank to Anantapuramu.

4. The facts show that on 20.07.2010 at about 02.30 p.m. when the deceased Tadmimarri Surya Prakash @ Suri was going on motor cycle bearing No. AP 02 AE 3485 from Kotank to Anantapuramu and reached near Yekkaluri Yellareddy lands, Garladinne Mandal, on his personal work and also owner’s work, he fell into a pit and sustained multiple injuries, and immediately shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Anantapuramu and from there, he was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment and on 01.08.2010 at 02.30 p.m. the deceased succumbed to injuries. As accident occurred due to deceased who was riding the motor cycle, Garladinne police registered a case in Cr.No.89/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of I.P.C. and the said case was abated. The deceased was aged about 28 years and doing agriculture works, and business earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the petition, filed written statement resisting the claim, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident and death of deceased and contended that, as per records accident occurred only due to self negligence of deceased, and he is not owner of the motor cycle and the deceased was in unauthorised possession of the said motor cycle. Risk to the person who was in unauthorised possession of motor cycle is not covered, as owner has not paid any premium to cover the risk of unauthorised passengers. Under the insurance policy, only the original owner of the vehicle alone is covered. As per records, the deceased was not holding any driving license at the time of accident and the claim of compensation is excessive.

The 1st respondent i.e., owner of the motor cycle was remained exparte.

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

1. Whether the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 02 AE 3485 has driven same rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased T.Surya Prakash @ Suri?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount?

3. Whether the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation?

4. To what relief?

7. To substantiate the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Ex.X-1 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, to the date of realisation.

9. The plea of the 2nd respondent/Insurance C