IMPORTANT POINT
Parents of deceased, entitled to Rs.100000/- towards loss of love and affection, also entitled for Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses.

B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimants, aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Khammam (for short the Tribunal) in M.A.T.O.P.No.110 of 2002.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:

The claimants filed a petition before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Khammam claiming compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the death of their son Parsagani Rama Krishna @ Biksham, hereinafter referred as the deceased, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. On 26.12.2001 at 8.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding to Gangadevipadu along with the respondents 1 and 2 on a tractor bearing registration No.ATS 7331 and trailer bearing registration No.ATS 7332. It is alleged that the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the tractor owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied brakes suddenly, as a result of which, the deceased and the 2nd respondent, who were sitting by the side of the driver of the tractor, fell down and the tractor ran over the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Penuballi and from there to Government Head-quarters Hospital, Khammam where, while undergoing treatment, he died. It is stated that the deceased was working as a coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day.

4. The respondents filed written statements denying the allegations made in the petition including the manner of accident, age and income of the deceased. R.1 and R.2 contended that the tractor and trailer were hypothecated with Sri Laxmi Auto Finance, Bantumalli, and as such, the said finance company is necessary party to the O.P. It is the contention of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company that the 1st respondent was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, and that the vehicle was not insured with them and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to want amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked.

6. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. He deposed in consonance with the pleadings of the petition He denied the suggestion that the 1st respondent was not driving the tractor at the time of accident.

9. The 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1. According to him, when the driver of the tractor went to attend calls of nature by keeping the tractor by the side of a paddy hay, the deceased started to drive the tractor. Then, he admonished the deceased, why he was driving the tractor without knowing driving, for which, the deceased replied that he was stopping the tractor, and while getting down from the tractor, he fell underneath the tractor. He further deposed that the brother-in-law of the deceased was having enmity with their family, and so, he got filed a criminal case against him. He admitted that he filed a counter and he knows the contents thereof. He stated that in the counter he got it mentioned that one Darsu was the driver of the tractor. He denied the suggestion that he did not get it mentioned in the counter that