JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 16.02.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.146 of 2001 whereby, the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- directing the 2nd respondent/Insurer to pay the awarded amount with running interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs of the petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition.

3. The factual context of the case, is as under:

(a) A 36 year old Ramalingachari was a Junior Assistant in the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Srikakulam. At the time of his death, the deceased was drawing a monthly gross salary of Rs.4,875/-. On 04.09.2000 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased was proceedings on his Scooter bearing No.AHV 8929 towards his village Murapaka from Srikakulam and when he reached near Koyyarallu junction, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 7V 545 driven by its driver very rash and negligent manner endangering the human life, and dashed against the double bullock cart and later hit the deceased, as a result, he received severe injuries and died instantaneously. The matter was reported to the police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle by its driver and based on the FIR lodged by P.Nageswara Rao, a case in Crime No.157 of 2000 of Etcherla Police Station, Srikakulam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC was registered. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver of the offending lorry for having committed the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.

b) The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the sons, the 4th petitioner is the mother and the 5th petitioner is the sister of the deceased – Ramalingachari. They filed the petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, on account of the death of the deceased-Ramalingachari in the said road traffic accident.

c) Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent- Insurance Company filed counter contending inter alia that the insurer would take all relevant and necessary pleas at the appropriate time. The petitioners are put to strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased due to which, he died on the spot. Further, it was contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof that the offending lorry bearing No.AP 7V 545 is having a policy at the time of the accident. Further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

(d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver of the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover the compensation, and, if so, what amount of compensation and from, which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

(e) During the trial, in order to establish their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, P.Nageswara Rao, who lodged the complaint intimating about the accident to the police, was examined as P.W.2, and M.V.Ramanabhatlu, who was working as Junior Assistant and who produced pay certificate and service register of the deceased, was exam