JUDGMENT:

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2007 on the file of District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation of Rs.8,38,224/- awarded under the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2011 as against the claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-, filed the present appeal

2. Climate No.1 is the wife, climate No.2 is the son, climate No.3 is the daughter of one D. Jagannadha Nayudu, (hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’).

3. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent no.2 is the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 U 5299 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and respondent No.3 is the owner of the Eicher Van bearing no.AP 9P 5840 in which the deceased was travelling (for short Eicher van), before the learned MACT.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants/petitioners:

5 (i). While the deceased was going to his official duty on 15.04.2006 at about 10.00p.m. in the Eicher Van bearing No.AP 9P 5840, when it reached near Ranapur village within the limits of Pebberi Police Station, Mahabub Nagar District, the offending vehicle belonging to the 1^st respondent, being driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Eicher van, causing the accident and instantaneous death of the deceased.

(ii). A case in Cr.No.41 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 337, 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheet was laid.

(iii) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iv) The 1^st respondent is the owner, 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and the 3^rd respondent being the owner of a Eicher van. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and the claimants/petitioners and dependents entitled for the same.

(v) The deceased was aged about ‘51’ years and earning Rs.9378/-per month while working as an Armed Reserve Police and also Rs.1,00,000/-per annum from cultivation.

(vi) The petitioners lost all financial and valuable support due to sudden death of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. Hence they are entitled for the compensation claimed.

6. The first respondent owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte

Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

7 (i). The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased as well as the dependency of the claimants/petitioners.

(ii) Compensation claimed is excessive.

case of the 3rd respondent:-

8. (i) Claimants shall prove the all the allegations made. The deceased was working as a driver and was deputed to drive Eicher van to PTC, Amberpet, Hyderabad under the charge of ARSI – K.V.Sankar with escort party.

(ii) The 3^rd respondent is not a proper party, there is no liability for the 3^rd respondent and liability if any shall be on the 1^st and 2nd respondents.

(iii). In any event, the 3^rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

Evidence before the learned MACT:-

9. (i) The first petitioner/claimant - wife of the deceased was examined as a PW1. She has stated about the relationship of claimants with the deceased, age, occupation and income of the deceased.

(ii) One K.Gurrappa Naidu was examined as PW2, but he has stated during the cross of examination that he did not witness the accident.

(iii) PW.3- P.Chenchu Reddy said to be an eyewitness and one of the inmates of the van travelling along with the deceased, deposed about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iv) Claimants relied on Exs.A1- FIR, A2 -charge sheet, A3 -Post-Mortem Certificate, A4 -Salary Certificate of the deceased, A5-Patadar passbooks, A