JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 107 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the United India Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Anantapur, who is the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P. preferred this appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on it.

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

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Gulam Ali Hussain (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.12.2009.

4. It is not in dispute that the 1st claimant is the wife; and claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased.

5. The claimants’ case is that on 11.12.2009 the deceased was coming to his village from Garladinne on a motorcycle bearing No. AP-02-F-4547 along with two pillion riders. At about 10.00 PM, when they reached near Budedu village cross, the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP-02-W-1428 and 1429 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the same and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased and others fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased and one Thomas were died on the spot and the 2nd pillion rider died while shifting to Government Hospital. The Garladinne Police has registered a case in Cr. No. 128 of 2009 under section 304A of IPC against the offending vehicle’s driver.

6. The claimants’ further case is that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident and was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and contributing the same to the claimants who are his dependents.

7. The first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

8. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its written statement, contended that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased without having driving licence and carrying two pillion riders. There was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle’s driver. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are therefore necessary parties to the petition. The offending vehicle’s driver did not possess valid driving licence, the Insured has not obtained valid fitness certificate to the offending vehicle. The claimants’ claim is excessive. The claimants have to prove that they are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased and entitled for compensation.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 and Exs.X.1 and X.4.

10. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the contributory negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver and the deceased and on account of which the deceased died; and the tribunal granted compensation of Rs.11,94,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. against the respondents.

11. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant/second respondent contends that the tribunal ought to have noted that as per the provision of Sec.128 of M.V. Act, triple riding is prohibited and which is cause of contributory negligence; the tribunal ought to have noted that the offending vehicle’s driver does not having valid and effective licence at the time of accident; the tribunal ought to have noted that Ex.X.4 is clear enough that the offending vehicle has no fitness at the time of accident and in that view, it ought not to