The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the principles of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and contributory negligence, as interpreted and applied in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/R3/insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, at Pithapuram, in M.V.O.P.No.44 of 2017 dated 20.07.2018 wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners for the death of Kum.Guna Lakshmi Krishna Dharani(herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.11.2016 at about 11.45 a.m.

2. The appellant/insurance company and respondents 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as R3 and petitioners as arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal in brief is that they are parents of the deceased who died in motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.11.2016 at 11.45 a.m., Atchempeta Center, Thimmapuram Police Station limits. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 13.11.2016 their son and daughter (deceased) went to their maternal grand-parents village, i.e. Vijayarayudupalem on motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 CP 9422. At that time, the deceased was pillion rider. The petitioners submit that when the deceased and her brother(rider of motor cycle) were proceeding on a motor cycle, when they reached Atchampeta Center, one tipper lorry bearing No.AP 05 TD 4448 driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from Samarlakota side while proceeding towards Suryaraopeta, dashed against the motor cycle wherein the deceased was travelling along with her brother as a pillion rider, due to which, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the report lodged by the first petitioner/mother of the deceased, the Station House Officer, Thimmapuram police station registered the case against R1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. The petitioners submit that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of tipper and R2 is the owner of offending vehicle which insured with R3 insurance company and the policy was in force on the date of accident. They submit that the deceased was studying Teacher Training Course in V.V.S.College of Teacher Training and she was a meritorious student. But due to sudden demise of the deceased they sustained irreparable loss. They claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on various heads.

4. The third respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the manner in which the accident occurred, age and income of the deceased claimed by the petitioners prior to the accident. It is the contention of R3 that respondents 1 and 2 violated the conditions of the policy. They submit that accident occurred due to the negligent driving of rider of motor cycle who was not having driving licence. They pray to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent by vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 4448 resulting injuries and death of the deceased?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of R3, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked with consent.

7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, R3-insurance company preferred the present appeal stating that the Tribunal failed to see that the deceased was studying XI Class and she secured seat in management quota, due to that she cannot be treated as a brill