JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.805 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.87,500/-, filed the present appeal questioning the just and adequate nature of compensation.

2. The claim was laid seeking compensation for the death of one Kalluri Koteswaramma in a motor vehicle accident. Claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased.

3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Auto bearing No.AP 07 TT 9032 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and Respondent No.2 is the insurer.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the claimants” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

5(i). On 17.06.2009 at about 11:00 a.m., while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle near Mamillapalli cross road within the limits of Ponnur Rural Police Station, the offending vehicle, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, causing the accident. The deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries. She was admitted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, but while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the injuries.

(ii). The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 50 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day, contributing the same to the claimants. Her death exposed the claimants to loss of dependency.

(iii). The Police registered a case under Section 304(A) of I.P.C vide Crime No.114 of 2009 against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently a charge sheet was filed. In view of the death of the deceased due to the accident, the claimants are entitled for reasonable compensation.

6. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, did not choose to file any written statement.

Case of respondent No.2-Insurnace Company:

7. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the auto, death of deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and loss of dependency due to the death of the deceased etc. and the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle is the cause for the accident in the form of contributory or composite negligence. Therefore, the owner and Insurance Company of the motorcycle are necessary parties.

Evidence before the learned MACT:

8. Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1. He has stated about the relationship of the claimants with deceased and the death of the deceased due to the accident. During cross-examination, he has stated that his children are living separately and they are not dependents. He has denied the suggestion that the rider of the motor cycle was at fault.

9. One Chevuri Sivaparvathi was examined as P.W.2. She has stated about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. She stated that she, her husband and the deceased were travelling on the motorcycle at the time of accident. She has denied the suggestion that the rider of the motorcycle was at fault.

10. For the respondent Insurance Company one J. Prasanthi Kumar, working as an Assistant in the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. He has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was having non transport category driving licence and claimed that the negligence of the deceased was the cause of the accident.

11. Further, one M. Suresh Babu, Senior Assistant in the Motor Vehicle Inspector office, Tenali was examined as R.W.2. He has stated that a person holding a non-transport category licence is entitled for a transport category licence only after holding a non-transport category licence for one year.

12. The claimants relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post- mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Motor Vehicle