IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants are entitled to just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, irrespective of the amount claimed, and benefits from compassionate appointments do not affect this entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the appellant through virtual mode and Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V Act”) was filed by the United Insurance Company Limited, challenging the award dated 24.08.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.212 of 2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short, “the Tribunal”).

3. The respondents in appeal 1 to 5 are the claimants and respondent No.6 is the owner of the auto.

4. The claimants respondents filed M.V.O.P.No.212 of 2008 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the death of M. Suresh Babu. He was working as Assistant Engineer at Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Kalamalla during July, 2006. He was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.19,000/- per month. On 14.07.2006 Suresh Babu and his elder brother Anjaneyulu were proceeding towards Rajeev Circle, Proddatur, on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle around 11.00 p.m, when they reached the Church area located near Subbireddi Kottalu, an auto AP 07-T- 8743 which belonged to the 6th respondent being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle. He sustained severe injuries; was admitted in Government hospital and succumbed to injuries on the way while shifting to another hospital, on 15.07.2006 at about 3.00 a.m. The auto was insured with United India Insurance Company, the appellant.

5. The respondent No.6-owner was set ex parte.

6. The insurance company filed written statement. It was submitted inter alia that the deceased had no valid driving license to drive the motor cycle. The alleged collision with auto was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. The fitness certificate of the auto expired on 08.06.2006. It was not renewed. The driver of the auto had also no valid driving license. The claimants were not entitled for any compensation and if at all the owner was alone liable to pay. Insurance also pleaded that the claim was highly excessive. The first claimant widow of Suresh Babu got job on compassionate ground and was drawing monthly salary.

7. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the deceased died in a motor accident that occurred on 14.07.2006 at 10.00 p.m due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle AP 07-T-8743 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed?

3. To what relief?

8. For evidence the claimants examined P.W.1 M. Indra Kumari and P.W.2 Ramanjaneyulu. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and had accompanied the deceased. In documentary evidence, they marked Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R in Crime No.91 of 2006 of of Proddatur III Town Police Station, Ex.A.2 certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 certified copy of Postmortem certificate, Ex.A.4 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.5 certified copy of altered FIR in Crime No.91 of 2006, Ex.A.6 Xerox copy of insurance policy, Ex.A.7 salary certificate of deceased for Rs.18,473/-, Ex.A.8 service certificate issued by A.P. GENCO, Ex.A.9 original driving license of the deceased.

9. The insurance company examined R.W.1 M. Mallikarjuna, Junior Assistant and got marked Ex.X.1 authorizationletter, Ex.X.2 extract of driving license of Mohammed Haji Shaik, Ex.X.3 extract of BRegister of Ve3hicle bearing No.A.P.07-8743, Ex.X.4 fitness certificate history up to 08.06.2006.

10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. There was no negligence on the part of the deceased. So there was no contributory negligence. It also recorded that the deceased had valid driving license. Ex.A.9 issued on 29.01.1996 and valid till 07.04.2023 effective on the date of accident.

11. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the clai