JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2005 in M.V.O.P. No. 546 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Kurnool, (for short “the tribunal”) Respondent No. 2-M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal, questioning the correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal.

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

3. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are minor children, petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of one Jambunaboyina Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’)

4. The claimant’s case is that on 14.04.2002 between 09.00 PM and 10.30 PM on NH5 road between Govindapalli and Kanalapalle Villages while the deceased was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motorcycle from Nandyal to his native place Peruru Village, at about 21.30 hours the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP-21-C-5756 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) proceeded in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Hero Honda Motorcycle. The deceased fell on the road, received grievous, serious, bleeding injuries to the face and head and fell unconscious. While undergoing treatment in Government General Hospital, Nandyal, the deceased died on 16.04.2002 at 11.30 AM.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement and contended that the said jeep never hit the Hero Honda Motorcycle of the deceased, and the same was implicated falsely. The offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid and subsisting driving license to drive it; the claimants have to establish the manner of the accident and the involvement of the jeep in the accident.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, none were examined and Ex.B1 policy was marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to Mahindra Jeep's driver's rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,41,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. against the respondents jointly and severally.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent contends that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim and erred in law and facts in fastening the liability on the insurance company. The offending vehicle is wrongly implicated in the case; the Tribunal awarded an exorbitant amount towards compensation.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Now the points for determination are:

(I) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Jeep bearing No. AP-21-C-5756?

(II) Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

POINTS:

13. The main contention of the 2nd respondent is that even according to Ex.A.1-certified copy of F.I.R. it is a hit-and-run case. As per the contents of F.I.R. the opposite vehicle dashed against the Hero Honda Motorcycle. As rightly pointed out by the appellant's counsel, the particulars of the offending vehicle were not given in the F.I.R. The Tribunal has found that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Though the appellant/insurance has disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, it has not disputed the deceased's death due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is also evident from Ex.A2 CC of the charge sheet, Ex.A3 CC of the Inquest report, and Ex.A4 CC of the Postmortem report. The 1st petitioner was examined as PW-1; in the cross-examination, she stated that she did not see the accident. She does not know wh