IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of no contributory negligence, affirming the insurer's burden to prove negligence and validating the awarded interest rate.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents appearing through virtual mode.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed challenging the Award dated 29.11.2018 of the MACT in M.V.O.P.No.363 of 2013.

3. The appellant is Reliance General Insurance Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed M.V.O.P.No.363 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, M.V. Act) claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of Ponga Tirupathi, husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, in Motor Accident which took place on 29.09.2012 near Bangalavalasa Village, Sunkara Metta Panchaithi, Arakuvally within the jurisdiction limits of Arakuvally Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

4. The case of the claimant/respondents was that the deceased aged about 38 years was working as employee/technician in Indian Railways, Visakhapatnam Divison earning Rs.19,855/- P.M. by the date of death. On 29.09.2012 he was going to Araku Valley from Vizianagaram on his motor bike bearing No.AP 31 X 3942 and the driver of the offending vehicle while coming from the opposite direction, Araku Valley to Visakhapatnam City, driving in a high speed and in negligent manner dashed the motor bike of the deceased, due to which, the deceased and the claimant/respondent No.1 fell down and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Srungavarapu Kota Hospital where Ponga Tirupathi was declared as dead. The case Crime No.80 of 2012 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC was registered against the driver/ respondent No.4. The claimants claimed compensation against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the appellant herein.

5. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.O.P) remained exparte.

6. The appellant (respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P) filed counter inter alia submitting that the claimants shall prove their relationship with the deceased, his age, income and their entitlement for the claim amount. They shall also prove that the accident took place in the manner as claimed by them; the negligence of the driver, the valid driving licence at the time of the accident with the driver and that he was working under the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants shall also prove that there were no violations of the conditions of the terms of the policy. Plea was also taken that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, and that the insurer of the bike on which the deceased was travelling was not impleaded. The amount of compensation claimed was said as excessive.

7. The MACT, Visakhapatnam framed the following issues and additional issues in Para No.5 of the Award which reads as under:-

“5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues and additional are settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased was died in the motor accident occurred on 29.09.2012 due to rash and negligent act of driver of jeep bearing No.AP 31 X 3942 ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents ?

3. Whether the case is non-joinder of necessary party ?

4. To what relief ?”

8. The claimants examined PW.1 to PW.3 and filed Ex.A1 to A7, besides Ex.X1 to Ex.X4, in support of their claim. Exs.A1 to A7 are FIR, Post mortem report, MVI report, Computer printout of Form-16 of the deceased, Pay slip of deceased, True copy of family members certificate and Driving licence issued in the name of Tirupathi, respectively. Ex.X1 to X4 are Mr. P. Tirupathi while working as Technician Gr.I died on 29.09.2012, Attested copy of legal heir certificate, Pay particulars of deceased and Annual pay slip of deceased.

9. The appellant (respondent No.3 in MVOP) did not adduce any evidence but on his behalf Ex.B1 (Policy Copy) was marked by consent.

10. The Moto