JUDGMENT :

V. Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.06.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.205 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The appellants herein are the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased Hari Babu, who driven the car at the time of accident.

3. According to the claimants, on 13.02.2011 at about 03.30 p.m. near Naravari Rahadari turning on a road running from Chittoor to Kurnool, N.H.18 in between Piler and Kallur of Pulicherla Mandal, when the deceased along with his friends was proceeding in Verna Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948 came in opposite direction with sugarcane load at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said car. As a result of which, spark ignited in the engine of car, which caught hold fire on the spot and the inmates of the car also died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years and working as Analyst Programmer in Syntel Ltd., Chennai and earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. They filed M.V.O.P. under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- against the insurers and insured of both the vehicles.

4. Counter was filed by the owner of lorry denying all the material allegations stating that there was no negligence on the part of driver of lorry and the accident occurred due to careless and contributory negligence of deceased Haribabu, who driven car at the time of accident and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Counter was filed by the insurer of the lorry, denying all the material allegations, stating that the policy issued to the lorry was in force at the time of accident; and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased and hence, the insurer of the lorry is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Counter was filed by one of the legal heirs of owner of the car stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry; that the driver of the car was having valid driving license and the policy issued to the car was in force at the time of accident and hence insurer of the car is liable to pay compensation.

7. Counter was filed by the insurer of car stating that the driver of the car was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy; and that the claim of the claimants is highly excessive and hence prays to dismiss the petition.

8. The Tribunal settled the following issues basing on the material :

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing Regn No.AP 04 T 0948 of 1st Respondent or due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (deceased) of the Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337 of Respondents 4 to 6 on 13.02.2011 ?

2. Whether Sunkireddi Hari Babu died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident ?

3. What was the age and income of the deceased on the date of his death ?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so to which amount and from whom ? and

5. To what relief ?

9. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11, X.1 to X.7 were marked. On behalf of the insurer of the lorry and car, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked.

10. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and dismissed the petition.

11. It is against the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

12. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/