The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and compensation in a motor vehicle accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 13.04.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 182/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,38,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Appikonda Lova Babu, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of the death of Appikonda Lova Babu, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the petitioners No. 2 to 4, and son of the petitioners No. 5 and 6, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.01.2012.

4. The facts show that on 08.01.2012 at about 08.00 p.m. the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26X 6667 going from Vissannapeta side towards Vemsoor being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and when it reached near the NTR canal on the outskirts of Venkatapuram village, drove the lorry under the low laying live electrical wires, as a result, the lorry came in contact with live electrical wires and the deceased Lova Babu was sitting in the cabin tried to get down from the lorry, meanwhile he was electrocuted and succumbed to injuries. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle after loading sugar cane of one Bhimireddy Chenna Reddy on the lorry. The Police of Vemsoor P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 4/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A I.P.C. The deceased was hale and healthy, and he was 26 years old by the time of accident, used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month as a loading and unloading coolie.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, filed written statement 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, contended that the driver of lorry has no driving license as on the date of accident, and the 2nd respondent is not having permit, fitness certificate and registration certificate of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Jattu coolies are not entitled to travel with the load on the same vehicle and if anybody travels, it is a permit violation and also the violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The subject vehicle is a goods carriage and the seating capacity is three inclusive driver, owner and cleaner. The deceased and others in the cabin are unauthorised passengers, and the policy does not cover the risk of unauthorised passengers. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The respondents No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident arose due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 26X 6667 by 1st respondent resulting death of the deceased?

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

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1, Exs.X-1 to X-4 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a