The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles in determining the compensation amount in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT :

G. SRI DEVI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited, questioning the order and decree, dated 16.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 243 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak At Sangareddy (for short the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Narsuri Kiran Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.02.2013. It is stated that on that day while the deceased and his friends were going towards Basar in a Car bearing No. AP-10-AZ-3863 and reached near Railway Station on Basar-Bhainsa road, hit a lorry bearing No. AP-25-T-7887 which was parked on the middle of the road without any indicators and signals, from its behind, due to which, one person byname Srikanth, who was driving the Car died on the spot and other inmates of the Car sustained injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Basar and from there, the deceased was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No. 13 of 2013 has been registered against the driver of the Lorry. It is also stated that the deceased was M.C.A. graduate and was doing job, besides running Wine shop and doing agriculture personally and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is further stated that the deceased was an income tax assessee having PAN card. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income and love and affection. Therefore, the claimants filed the above O.P. against the respondents 1 to 4, who are the owner and insurer of the Lorry and owner and insurer of the Car respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

5. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the Lorry, filed counter denying the averments in the petition. It is also stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Car, who had no control over the Car and the Car was turned turtle and that there was no involvement of the Lorry. It is further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

6. The 4th respondent, insurer of the Car, filed counter contending that the deceased was holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the police registered a case against the driver of the Lorry and the owner and insurer of the Car were impleaded as proforma parties. It is also stated that if for any reason, the deceased was found to be responsible for causing the accident due to his self negligence the claimants were not entitled for any compensation.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

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

3. To what relief?

8. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs. 24,71,500/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, who is the insurer of the Lorry, filed the present appeal.

10. Heard and perused the record.

11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that this is a clear case of contributory negligenc