Acquittal in criminal case does not negate civil liability, and the Tribunal's assessment of income and application of multiplier were justified.

JUDGMENT :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

Heard Mr. N.Chanddra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company and Mr. T.Venkat Rathnam, learned counsel representing Mr. Vidiyala Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.573 of 2015, dated 07.04.2022, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the insurance company.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

3.1. On 27.12.2014, M.Krishna @ Krishnamachary (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-BJ-7589 to his house from Nadergul, when reached beside Sri Nilaya Township Kaman, Badangpet at about 7.00 p.m., one rider of Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-BR-1683 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased in a opposite direction, as a result, deceased fell down and sustained head and multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Om Sai Hospital, Balapur and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 30.12.2014.

3.2. The Police, Meerpet, Police Station registered a case in Crime No.829/2014 and laid a charge sheet before the competent Court.

3.3. The claimants, i.e., wife, children and parents of the deceased, have filed claim petition against owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Act Rules, 1989 r/w Section 140 (c) of MV Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with costs and interest from the date of accident till realization.

3.4. It was contended that the deceased was aged 35 years, hale and healthy as on the date of the accident and was working as Goldsmith and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family and because of death of deceased, claim petitioners have lost their love and affection and they become destitute.

4. The respondent No.5 herein, who is the rider-cum-owner of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended inter alia that he is not involved in the alleged accident, that the Police have falsely implicated him in the criminal case in order to file the claim against the insurance company, and that even assuming that accident occurred due to negligence of this respondent, it is for the insurance company to pay the compensation, as the crime vehicle was duly insured with it and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that the owner of the crime vehicle did not inform this respondent in respect of the factum of accident in active collusion with the claimants; that the rider of crime vehicle was not holding driving license to drive the motorcycle. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. They further submitted that the owner of the crime vehicle has denied his involvement in the accident, and also cont