The court emphasized the principle of just compensation, modifying awards to align with established legal standards for loss of dependency and conventional heads.

JUDGMENT :

1. MACMA.No.1108 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 10.10.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum –Additional District Judge, Ongole in MVOP.No.689 of 2009.

2. MACMA.No.1127 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ insurance company impugning the order dated 10.10.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum –Additional District Judge, Ongole in MVOP.No.688 of 2009.

3. Heard arguments of Sri N.Rama Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/ insurance company and Sri Madala Sai Teja, the learned counsel representing Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri for respondents/ claimants. The subject matter accident is same and that gave rise to two death claims. The facts and law are common in both the appeals. The learned counsel on both sides submitted their arguments in both the appeals together. By this common judgment, both the appeals shall be disposed of.

4. On 25.10.2009, the motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 27 G 9877 was going towards Medarametla being driven by Sri T.Sridhar alias Sridhar Babu with a pillion rider by name Sri A. Ramana Rao. A lorry bearing registration No. AP 27 W 1566 came and dashed the motorcycle on its rear side and dragged the motor cycle to a distance and stopped. Sri A.Venkata Ramana Rao died on the spot. Sri T.Sridhar Babu was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole and succumbed to the injuries and died. Cr.No.110 of 2009 was registered by Medarametla Police Station against the drier of the offending lorry.

5. The wife, mother and grandmother of the deceased A.Venkata Ramana Rao filed MVOP.No.688 of 2009 under section 166 of the MV Act praying for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

6. The wife, two minor children and the parents of the deceased Sri T.Sridhar Babu filed MVOP.No.689 of 2009 under section 166 of the MV Act praying for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

7. In both the appeals, the driver of the offending lorry was shown as R1, the owner as R2 and the insurance company as R3.

8. The driver did not choose to appear and contest, and the proceedings went ahead against him ex-parte.

9. The owner of the offending vehicle filed counters in both the matters stating that the fault lies with the driver of the motor cycle as he drove it in a jig jag manner and came in front of the lorry and suffered the accident and there was no rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending lorry.

10. In both maters, the insurance company filed a counter stating that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess valid and effective driving licence. That the motorcyclist was negligent and suffered the accident and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim.

11. In MVOP.No.688 of 2009, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 26 W-1566 on 25-10-2009 at 19-00 hours, Opp. Timmanapalem S.C. Colony on N.H.5 Road?

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

3. Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct?

4. To what relief?

The evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.B1 were placed for consideration before the claims tribunal. Respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. An attested copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B1 which covered a period from 18.11.2008 to 17.11.2009 for the offending lorry was placed for consideration by the insurance company. Therefore, it was made clear that by the time of accident, the insurance policy was in force.

12. After considering the evidence of PW.2/ eye witness to the accident and Ex.A1/ FIR in Cr.No.110 of 2009 and Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police, the learned claims tribunal concluded saying that there was no fault on part of t