JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 10.12.2015 passed in O.P.No.79 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short “the Tribunal”), the present appeal has been filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the wife, sons and mother of M. Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed a petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 21.11.2008. It is stated that on 21.11.2008, the deceased was returning to his village on his Hero Honda motorcycle No.AP-25-BD-TR-9739 from Nizamabad and when he reached the outskirts of Makloor village, an unknown vehicle hit him and ran away. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Pragathi Hospital, Nizamabad and while undergoing treatment, he died. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was aged 30 years, running school and getting income of Rs.25,000/- per month. Though the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the unknown vehicle, as his vehicle is insured with Insurance Company, the claimants laid the claim-petition against Insurance Company.

4. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition. It is further contended that the deceased Naresh Kumar was the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing No. AP.25.BD.TR.9739, which was insured with the respondent and the deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and he is not third party to the policy. It is further contended that under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, since the income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, this petition is not maintainable.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the petition is maintainable under Section 163-A of M.V. Act?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation against the respondent. If so, to what just amount?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,51,491/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum against the respondent. Challenging the said findings, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both the counsel and perused the material available on record.

9. The main contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that when the deceased was the owner of the offending vehicle and died due to his own negligence, they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the tribunal grossly erred in holding that the deceased was getting income not less than Rs.7,000/- though the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the respondent-Insurance Company paid Rs.1,01,509/- to PW-1 for the risk covered under the personal accident policy for the death of her husband.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has contended that considering the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.9,51,491/- which is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

11. A perusal of the impugned award discloses that the Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to ‘Whether the petition is maintainable under Section 163-A of M.V. Act’, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable and has answered the issue in