Claimants failed to establish negligence of the lorry driver, resulting in dismissal of compensation claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) is filed by the appellants/claimants impugning the order dated 27.04.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Principal District Judge, Eluru in MVOP.No.619 of 2010.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Eluru Seshu Mahesh Babu, the learned counsel on behalf of Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, the learned counsel for respondents.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri M. Sri Hari Reddy was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. AHK 2466 and his wife Smt. M.Jyothi was the pillion rider. A lorry bearing registration No. AP TV 0567 is stated to be the offending vehicle. On 29.07.2009 near Pothuru village collision took place between these two vehicles and in that Sri M. Sri Hari Reddy died and his wife sustained some injuries. The brother of the deceased lodged written information on the same day and FIR was issued as per Ex. A1. The wife and mother of the deceased filed MVOP.No.619 of 2010 under section 166 of the MV Act for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was R1. The owner was R2. The insurer was R3. Before the learned claims tribunal, the driver and owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter denying the narration of accident as mentioned in the claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that the death of Sri M.Sri Hari Reddy was out of his own negligent act as his motorcycle went and dashed a vehicle going ahead of it. It prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Learned claims learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the Motor Vehicle accident on 29.07.2009 near Pothuru on N.H.5 Road opposite Jaya Spin Pipes Company, arose on account of negligence of R-1/driver of Lorry bearing Number AP 16 TV 0567, resulting death of deceased Mukku Sri Hari Reddy?

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

3. To what relief?

5. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 and RW.1 and 2 and Exs. A1 to A9 and Ex. B1 and B2 were placed for consideration. After detailed analysis of the evidence on record, learned claims tribunal stated that claimants made out a case for compensation under the following heads.

 Towards loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/-

 towards loss of consortium Rs.15,000/-

 towards loss of estate Rs.4,000/-

Thus, a total compensation that could be awarded was 4,66,000 and 7.5% interest was found to be appropriate by the learned claims tribunal. However, it stated that there was absolutely no fault on part of the offending lorry. The entire fault was on part of the deceased himself. Therefore, it held that the claim under section 166 of the act failed. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim.

6. Aggrieved by it, claimants preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the evidence of PW.1 and 2, who were the eyewitnesses, clearly established the fault on part of the offending lorry, and the learned claims tribunal committed grave error in failing to appreciate the facts. Since the first claimant/ first appellant was unconscious for 14 days, she could not lodge the FIR within time. Learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned award and grant compensation as prayed for.

7. As against it, the learned counsel for respondents made valiant arguments stating that with appropriate reasons, facts were considered and concluded by the learned claims tribunal and it rightly dismissed the claim and no interference is required in this appeal.

8. During the course of hearing, one of the questions that came up for consideration was since death in the vehicle accident is an established fact on record and even if the deceased was responsible for the accident and consequential death, whether the legal representatives could make a claim for that amount of compens