JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.1021 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court), Guntur, and the respondents are the petitioners and R1 in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents, praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of unmarried 22 years old Tractor Mechanic in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 26.10.2008 at 11.30 PM.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 26.10.2008, the deceased was coming from Telagapalem village of Ponnur Mandal after dropping his friend at his house on the offending motor cycle, at about 11.30 p.m., while he was passing near Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, he dashed against the telephone poll situated on the left side of the road, fell down and sustained fatal injuries and he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur in 108 Ambulance, but died while undergoing treatment on that intervening night and police registered a case in Crime No.135 of 2008 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and investigated the case. The petitioners further pleaded that the deceased used to get Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family consisting of his father, brothers and sister.

5. The respondent No.1 remained set exparte. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that because of the negligent driving of the deceased the accident took place, hence, the petitioners are not entitled any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Sujuki motor cycle No.AP 07 K 8503?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, from whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On behalf of the second respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle and in the said accident the deceased received fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/ Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

11. POINT:-

The first petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the certified copy of First Information Report as Ex.A1 and certified copy of Inquest Report as Ex.A2. On behalf of 2nd respondent/ appellant herein, their officer in the cadre of Assistant, is examined as RW1 and got marked the copy of Insurance policy as Ex.B1, letter dated 02.11.2009 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited as Ex.B2 and acknowledgment as Ex.B3.

12. Basing on the material on record, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the crime vehicle/ two-wheeler is involved in the accident and because of accident the deceased sustained fatal injuries, later succumbed to injuries.

13. The contention of the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the liability of Insurance Company does not arise as the deceased himself with his rash and negligent driving involved in the accident and died. Here the claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and involvement of the vehicle in the accident is sufficient. Here it is not a dispute that the crime vehicle/two-wheeler is involved in the accident. The Assistant of Insurance Company office is examined as RW1. As per his evidence t