The court affirmed that insurance liability exists despite policy violations, enhancing compensation for loss of dependency and related claims based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.388 of 2013 dated 11.06.2015.

2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the petitioners and respondent No.4 herein is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.4 – respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the appeal.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, respondent No.3 – petitioner No.3 is the younger brother of the deceased T.Venkatesh.

5.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the death of T.Venkatesh in a motor vehicle accident.

5.2 It is stated in the petition that on 23.05.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., while T.Venkatesh along with his family members were proceeding to Shirdi in Qualis vehicle bearing No.AP-09-BN-6126, on 24.05.2010 at about 06.00 a.m., when the said vehicle was crossing the outskrits of the Sholapur near Kirti factory, the driver of the Qualis vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the goods lorry bearing registration No.MH-12-FA-9567, due to which T.Venkatesh received grievous injuries, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital at Sholapur and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day at 08.45.p.m. On the complaint lodged by the driver of the lorry, police Sholapur has registered a case in Crime No.123/2010 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the Qualis vehicle. The deceased T.Venkatesh was aged about 21 years as on the date of accident, was hale and healthy, was studying B-Tech final year and prayed to award compensation as prayed for.

6. Respondent No.4 - respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

7. Appellant - respondent No.2 filed counter in the O.P and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and they failed to make them as parties hence the claim petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the driver of the Qualis vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident, compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the same.

8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 09BN 6126 causing the death of T. Venkatesh?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

9. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – D.Srinivasa Chary and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the appellant – respondent No.2, they have examined RW1-M.Annapurna and got marked Ex.B1- copy of the policy.

10. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.14,21,000/- with costs and interest