The court reinforced the principle that just compensation must be awarded in accident cases, irrespective of whether claimants appeal, ensuring victims' families receive fair compensation for their losses.

JUDGMENT :

Tirumala Devi Eada, J.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 05.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.794 of 2016 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 15.02.2015 at 7:30 p.m., the deceased/S.Narayana was proceeding on a motor bike bearing No.TS-12EB-9813 on Pargi, Kodangal Road and when he reached neat Rangamapally Gate, lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319 driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner proceeding from Kodangal towards Hyderabad, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over the deceased and he died on the spot.

4. The parents, brothers and un-married sisters of the deceased filed claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 failed to file any counter affidavit while the contesting respondent i.e., Insurance Company has filed its counter denying the occurrence of accident, the age, income of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased and that there was no rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319 which is insured with them.

6. The Respondent No.4 is the wife of the deceased and she is living separately and thus the petitioners arrayed her as a respondent.

7. She has filed counter affidavit contending that the deceased used to contribute his income to her and that she became a destitute after the death of her husband and therefore, she is entitled to claim compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 3 and that she is the sole dependent on the earnings of her deceased husband.

8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the deceased S. Narayana S/o Kashappa @ Khasim died on 15.12.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver unknown and lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

3) To what relief?

9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- against a claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

11. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.10.

12. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have observed that the alleged accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, but that it was only due to the negligence of the deceased and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that as per the contents of the FIR under Ex.A1, the complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle and that the vehicle insured with them is falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the evidence of PW2 is not trustworthy and that he is not listed as an eye witness in the charge sheet and therefore th