JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/2nd respondent/Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company, Chennai, challenging the award dated 06.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.328/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl.District Judge, Chittoor, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.18,36,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the death of G.Nanda Kumar in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be arrayed as parties before the Tribunal.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-on account of the death of G.Nanda Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.04.2014.

4. The facts would show that the petitioners are the parents of deceased G.Nanda Kumar. On 04.04.2014 at about 04.00 p.m. the deceased G.Nanda Kumar was proceeding on his Suzuki Access Scooty bearing No.AP 05 CF 8080 to K.L.University, Vaddeswaram, and by that time, the driver of truck auto bearing No.AP 07 TW 5921, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the said vehicle, and as a result, the van dashed against deceased’s scooty on its back side, as a result, the deceased fell on road, and at that time the 3rd respondent/auto driver bearing No.AP 16 TW 3612, drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased, who was fell on road, as a result, the deceased sustained heavy injuries all over body and he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Tadepalli, and he succumbed to injuries. A case was registered in Cr.No.165/2014 of Tadepalli P.S. for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against drivers of both vehicles.

The deceased is aged 20 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident, and he was studying B.Tech I Year in K.L.University, Kunchanapalli. The 1st petitioner spent huge amount for the education of the deceased. The deceased is the only son to their parents and they are having high hopes on him. Due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners put to severe mental shock and agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter by denying the averments of the petition, contending that the claim of the petitioners is very high and excessive. The policy of crime vehicle was in force on the date of accident, and the driver of 1st respondent vehicle was having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, and hence, the 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation and only the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

6. The 3rd respondent remained exparte.

7. The 2nd respondent filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the petitioners are not at all original legal heirs of deceased. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The driver of the 1st respondent was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident, and the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim of the petitioners is very high and excessive.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 07/TW 5921 or due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of auto bearing No.AP 16 TW 3612, who is 3rd respondent herein or Suzuki Access Scooty bearing Reg. No.AP 05/CF 8080 i.e., petitioner or all of them?

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for comp