The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of contributory negligence and the determination of just compensation based on legal principles and judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the arguments of Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel representing Sri S. Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.

2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 06.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, Vizianagaram (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the death of one Madapana Adinarayana (hereinafter referred to ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 26.12.2009 at 8.00 PM near Singavaram village, Vizianagaram district.

5. The case of the claimants is that the claimants are dependants on the deceased; the deceased was working as a mason, aged 28 years and earning Rs.200/- per day; on 26.12.2009 he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP35F 4863; when he reached a place near Singavaram village, a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP31X 9549 (hereinafter referred to ‘offending vehicle’) was negligently and wrongly parked on the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures by the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle; as a result, the deceased dashed the offending vehicle from behind; he sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot; police registered a case and investigated the same and laid report (charge sheet). The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-.

6. The 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed counter denying the allegations of the claimants and contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.

7. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the allegations of the claimants are not true and correct and that, the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased.

8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased Madapana Adinarayana succumbed to injuries that caused him in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP31X 9549 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined one B.Bangaru Naidu as P.W.2 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents. On behalf of the respondents/owner or the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. Ex.B1 copy of policy was exhibited with the consent of parties.

10. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle, and estimated the contributory negligence of the deceased at ‘50%’.

11. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 assessed the compensation amount entitled by the claimants for a sum of Rs.4,44,000/-, but deducted 50% of the said amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- with interest at 6.5% per annum.

12. The claimants filed the appeal contending that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal ignoring the evidence of P.W.2 and police report (charge sheet) erroneously found that the deceased also contributed to the accident. The other contention is that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation.

13. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that P.W.2 evidence w