The deceased, being the son of the vehicle owner, is not considered a third party under the insurance policy, thus the insurer is not liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 31.03.2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Jayashankar – Bhupalpally (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1096 of 2016, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned award.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under:

a) The petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death of her son by name ‘Gavuru Ranjith Reddy’ (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased’). The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death of the deceased is that on 06.08.2016 at 5.30 PM while the deceased along with respondent No.1 were moving on a Tractor bearing No. TS 03 EA 5990 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘crime vehicle’), the wheels of the crime vehicle got stuck in the mud; when the deceased got down the vehicle, tried to remove the wheels from the mud, due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.1, the crime vehicle turned turtle and fell over the deceased, who sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment.

b) A case in Crime No.176/2016 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1 and subsequently after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

c) The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and at the time of death, he was aged about 22 years, hale and healthy. The deceased used to contribute his salary to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively, for the death of the deceased.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counters. They denied the manner of the accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased. It is further contended that respondent No.2 is the father of the deceased, as such, deceased cannot be treated as a third party. As per the version of respondent No.3, if there is any compensation payable, it is only respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable. Therefore, on the above grounds the respondents assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the case.

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

i) Whether the death of the deceased was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount, if so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined apart from exhibiting Ex. B1.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos.1 to 3 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.14,37,800/- jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 as