JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2007 in MVOP No.224 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 3rd respondent National Insurance Company, represented by its Branch Manager, has preferred this appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience.

3. The petitioners filed the claim application under Section 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of Petluri Sreenivasa Rao (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased') in a motor vehicle that occurred on 06.12.2005.

4. The 1st claimant is the mother, and claimants 2 and 3 are the deceased's grandparents. The husband of the 1st claimant was murdered. The claimant's case is that on 06.12.2005 during night hours, the deceased, after completing his work at the shop, was going to his village Renangivaram on his two-wheeler, a car bearing No.AP27A3564 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle), driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased’s two-wheeler and caused the accident, as a result of which the deceased fell and sustained multiple injuries on his body and died on the spot.

5. The original owner of the offending vehicle was the 1st respondent’s father, who died recently. The 1st respondent filed a counter-denying all the allegations in the claim petition. He contended that the 3rd respondent duly insured the offending vehicle. The policy is valid and in force as of the date of the accident. The 3rd respondent is wholly liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent is not a necessary party, and he is unnecessarily implicated.

6. As seen from the Tribunal’s order, the claim petition against the 2nd respondent is dismissed as he is only a person who took the car from the 1st respondent and again returned it to him.

7. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter contending that the 1st respondent is not the owner of the car in question; the insurance policy also is not in the 1st respondent’s name; the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated necessary issues for consideration.

9. During the trial on behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A4, and on behalf of 3rd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1 policy.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents. Perused the record.

11. After considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of Rs.2,71,932/-with interest at 7.5% per annum against respondents 1 and 3. The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed.

12. The learned appellant’s counsel contends that though the Tribunal framed the issue as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver bearing No.AP27A3564, but it failed to give any findings. He further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the deceased’s age while granting the compensation. He further contends that the mother’s age must be considered since the deceased was unmarried. The learned Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3rd amount towards the personal 1st expenses of the deceased. He further contends that the respondent failed to disclose material facts while taking an insurance policy.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the learned Tribunal's findings and observations.

14. Now the points for consideration are whether the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending vehicle; whether the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable; whether the insurance company can be saddled with the liability to pay the entire compensation amount or should be wholly exonerated or it should be made liable to pay the compensation amount and after that to recover the same from the leg