Compensation under Section 163-A must adhere strictly to established limits and cannot incorporate elements from fault liability, ensuring just outcomes consistent with legislative intent.

JUDGMENT :

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Since the claims in these appeals are occasioned out of same accident and as the same questions of fact and law have been challenged by the insurer/2^nd respondent, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in MACMA Nos.41 and 43 of 2024 and Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in MACMA No.1597 of 2024 and Sri Venuganti Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the respondents in all these appeals.

3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in MVOP Nos.296 of 2018, 297 of 2018 and 34 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar respectively.

4. The facts leading to filing of the above MVOPs are that on 16.09.2016, Bolli Raju, the deceased in MVOP No.296 of 2018, Manchamalla Raghu, the deceased in MVOP No.297 of 2018 and Pilli Santhosh, the deceased in MVOP No.34 of 2018, along with their friend, K.Srikanth, went to Saidapur Village from Bommanapalli Village for cooling the new Tractor Mahindra Yuvo bearing T/R.No.TS 02 PTR 9704 and while returning from Saidapur to Bommanapalli, on the way at about 20.00 hours, when they reached the outskirts of Duddenapalli Village, two police persons were proceeding in the same direction on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 BB 3142. Respondent No.1 allowed the motorcycle rider to overtake the tractor, but, within no time he drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down in the bushes. Respondent No.1 after hitting the motorcycle, lost control and drove the tractor to the right side and fell into the agricultural well situated by the road side, due to which, the deceased in these appeals along with another died on the spot, but, the driver of the tractor jumped and ran away from the scene of offence. On receipt of the complaint, the Station House Officer, Saidapur, registered a case, vide Crime No.114 of 2016 under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the driver of the Tractor. The age of the deceased persons in the above three appeals is 19 years, 25 years and 25 years, respectively, who were hale and healthy and working as labourers and auto driver, respectively, and were earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per annum each as on the date of accident and contributing the same for the welfare of the claimants. The claimants filed the MVOPs under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, each.

5. The driver of the Tractor i.e. respondent No.1-Kathula Shiv Kumar, owner of the accident vehicle/Tractor, remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal.

6. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter- affidavits before the learned Tribunal denying the allegations made by the claimants in the claim petitions. It is vehemently contended therein that the respondent No.1, driver (owner) of the Tractor, did not possess valid and effective driving license, which is a fundamental breach as to the terms and conditions of the policy and that the deceased and three others were travelling unauthorizedly by sittin