The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, the application of the pay and recovery principle, and the entitlement of claimants to a higher compensation amount based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri T.Sri Charan, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is directed by the claimants against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.134/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased filed claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their son Dasari Charles Bobby in a motor vehicle accident.

5. The case of the claimants is that on 29.04.2008 at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased Dasari Charles Bobby and his friend boarded an auto bearing No.AP 07Y 2169 (offending vehicle) to go to Guntur; they reached a place near Crane Nut Powder Company at Potturu village; the driver of auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed dead buffaloes; as a result, the auto turned turtle, the deceased and his friend sustained grievous injuries; the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, and later to Life Hospital, Kothapet, Guntur; after three days, he succumbed to injuries, while undergoing treatment; Taluk Police, Guntur, registered a case in Cr.No.101/2008 for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto; police investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the auto; the deceased was aged 27 years, working as office boy in Erudite Coaching Centre, Arundelpet, Guntur, and earning Rs.1,500/- per month at that time. Hence, the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased filed the claim petition.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent/insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed written statement and additional written statement; while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation contended that the driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle; the deceased is an unauthorised passenger boarded the goods vehicle; the 1st respondent thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.

8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and form which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. Before the learned Tribunal two witnesses were examined by the claimants and six documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6. One witness was examined by the 2nd respondent and two documents were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2.

10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed by the claimants through P.Ws-1 and 2, copy of FIR and police report (charge sheet) vide Exs.A-1 and A-2, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the driver of the offending vehicle. This finding is not challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle or by the insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company.

11. The claimants filed the appeal contending that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation for the death of their son caused in motor vehicle accident, and also on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to direct the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle and erroneously exoner