JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:

The 3rd respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 358 of 2005 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Chittoor (for short “the learned MACT”), filed the present appeal. Her status as wife of one K. Annaiah Naidu (deceased) is in dispute.

2. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are the claimants. The 3rd respondent herein is the owner of the tempo mini Lorry bearing No.AP 03 V 4167 [hereinafter referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] and the 4th respondent herein is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.

3. Claim was made by the 1st and 2nd respondents herein for awarding a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one K. Annaiah Naidu [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] in motor vehicle accident, contending that the 1st respondent is the wife, the 2 respondent is the father of the deceased, and disputing the status of appellant that she is not the wife of the deceased.

4. Learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- in total with interest 7.5%p.a., out of which, apportioned the amount of Rs.90,000/- each to the appellant and the 1st respondent herein, being wives, and Rs.80,000/- to the 2 respondent, father of the deceased.

5. Appeal is filed contending that the appellant alone is entitled for entire compensation and that the quantum of compensation awarded is not just and reasonable.

6. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred as the claimants and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants, in brief, is that:-

7. [i] On 18.8.2002 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased left Tirupati in the offending vehicle, for getting the load of papaya fruits from Koduru, when the vehicle was near the hotel of Maravaripalle cross, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the backside of the oil tanker bearing No.AP 03 U 1440, causing accident. In the said accident, K.Annamaya Naidu/deceased sustained severe and multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries while shifting to the hospital.

[ii] A case in Crime No.100 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Section 337-304A IPC, and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.

[iii] The deceased was aged about 38years; hale and healthy, working as a Manager under 1st respondent, getting a salary of Rs.2000/- per month, and batta of Rs.50/- per day. He has agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.1.80 cents of wet land and Ac.0.60 cents of dry land, raising the crops and was earning Rs.33,000/- by way of agricultural income per annum. He was contributing his all income to the family and the petitioners lost all valuable support. Hence, the claim.

[iv] The 3rd respondent filed Petition vide OP No.15 of 2003 for grant of Succession Certificate, claiming that she is wife of the deceased. Hence, she is made as a party, although she is not entitled.

[v] The1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. 2 respondent is the authorized insurer, with whom the vehicle was insured.Therefore, the first and second respondents are liable to pay.

Case of the first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle.

8. [i] Claimants shall prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

[ii] Compensation claimed is excessive.

[iii] Offending vehicle was insured with the2 respondent. In the eventof any liability, the2 respondent is accountable.

Case of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:-

9. [i] Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, and income of the deceased, loss of dependency, etc.

[ii] Further, the Insurance Policy, compliance of Policy conditions, etc., shall be proved.

[iii] Negligence of the driver of the Oil Tanker is the cause for the accident, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

[iv] The deceased is a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the2 respondent is not lia