JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2014 in M.V.O.P. No.972 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum-II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram (for short “the tribunal”) claimants, whereby the tribunal dismissed the claim petition, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants' case is that they have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.20,0,000/- on account of the death of Ulusu Gangaraju, (hereinafter be referred as “the deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.08.2004.

4. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the children and the respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was employed in Central Industrial Security Force and was working in Kaiga in Karnataka. On 14.08.2014 the deceased was returning to Komaragiripatnam village from Srungavruksham on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 5 G 4743. After crossing the railway station at Srungavruksham, at about 04.00 PM, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 4757 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) came from Bhimavaram side and going towards Palakole. The 1st respondent drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn at high speed and dashed the deceased from back side. As a result, the deceased fell down from motorcycle, the right side wheels of the offending vehicle ran over the head of deceased, and the deceased died on spot. Hence, the claim petition.

5. The 1st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, filed his counter denying the allegations made in the petition. He contended that he did not drive the lorry rashly and negligently ; the accident did not occur due to his driving the accident might have been caused by some other driver, but not the 1st respondent and that the compensation is exaggerated.

6. The 2nd respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, filed his counter contending that the accident might have been caused by some other vehicle, but not due to the 1st respondent. No liability is cast upon him. The 1st respondent did not drive the vehicle rashly and negligently. The 1st respondent did not cause the accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The 3rd respondent has to bear the same as an insurer.

7. The 3rd respondent filed its counter contending that the claim petition is not maintainable. The deceased himself contributed to the happening of the accident. The insurer of motorcycle bearing No.AP 5 G 4743, on which the deceased travelling, is also proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

8. The respondents 4 and 5 filed their counter contending that the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent; the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation not only to the petitioners, but also to the respondents 4 and 5. The 1st petitioner filed this petition on her own without consulting the respondents 4 and 5 for the reasons best known to her. The respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of deceased and dependents upon the deceased. Due to sudden death of their son, the respondents 4 and 5 suffered shock, mental agony and also lost their dependency. So the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to get compensation from the respondents 1 to 3.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On behalf of the respondents none were examined and got marked Ex.B.1-copy of the policy.

10. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the claimants failed to establish the involvement of the offending