JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.522/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court, Ongole, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Kakunuri Audinarayana in a motor vehicle accident.

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

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.163 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-on account of the death of Kakunuri Audinarayana, who is son of the petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.11.2008.

4. The facts show that on 07.11.2008 at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased Kakunuri Audinarayana, Y.Thirupathaiah and others, who wore Mala of Swamy Ayyappa, had taken bath near a public tap near Rajeev Colony, and after they are coming to the village, at that time auto bearing No.AP 27X 6757 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, hit K.Audinarayana and others, and as a result of which, the deceased and others fell on road and sustained multiple injuries and they were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Podili, and from there to Sai Bhaskar Trauma Hospital, Guntur, where the deceased succumbed to injuries. The deceased was aged about 18 years and he is an agriculturist and earning Rs.5,000/-per month and contributing the same to the family maintenance. The petitioners, who are parents of deceased, depending upon their son K.Audinarayana and due to sudden death of their son, they sustained heavy loss and suffered mental agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the material averments of the petition, contending that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver and it is the negligence of deceased and Thirupathaiah.

6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as the 3rd respondent indemnifies the liability of 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is high and excessive. The 1st respondent/driver is having valid driving license at the time of accident and the policy is in force, as such, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The counsel for 1st respondent filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 2nd respondent.

7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the police and relatives of deceased fabricated the case to the extent that the driver of auto bearing No. AP 27X 6757 was responsible for the accident and altered the number of vehicle from AP27X 6756 and filed charge sheet against driver of the vehicle No.AP 27X 6757 for the purpose of getting compensation from the insurance company. It is further contended that the crime vehicle has no permit to ply on road at the time of accident and the 1st respondent was not holding driving license to drive the auto at the time of accident, and thereby violated the provisions of section 3 of M.V.Act, and the 2nd respondent had knowingly and wilfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy and handed over the crime vehicle to the 1st respondent, thereby the 3rd respondent is not at all liable to indemnify the liability of 2nd respondent. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and petitioners are not entitled for any amount.

8. On the strength of the pleadin