Compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act is granted without needing to prove negligence, focusing on providing immediate relief to claimants with a capped income limit.

JUDGMENT :

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants against the order passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1101 of 2012, dated 22.07.2020, wherein the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,89,500/- to claimants, wherein claimants had earlier filed claim petition under Section 166 -A, however, later the Section of Law was altered from 166 of Motor Vehicle Act to Section 163 -A of Motor Vehicle Act, vide orders in IA No.1883 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2012, Sri P.Manohar Reddy (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) and his friends were returning to Hyderabad in Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785 and when they reached Addakal village, a lorry bearing No. NL-01/G0579, driven by driver rashly and negligently all of a sudden stopped the lorry without any precautions due to which the rear side of the lorry hit the deceased car. The inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures on the viral parts of the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2012 under Section 304 -A of IPC against the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785.

3. The contention of the appellants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years and he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in M/s.Wheel World, ECIL, Hyderabad. Due to the said accident, the appellants lost their dependency, hence, appellants claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of the deceased.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained set ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.2 further contended in the counter that petitioner are put to strict proof of all the happenings of the accident, involvement of the lorry NL-01/G0579, occupation and income of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased. As per F.I.R and claim petition, the accident took place only due to the sole negligence on part of driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785 and the Police Addakal also registered a case in Cr.No.1/2012 U/sec. 304(A), 337 IPC only against the driver of said Innova car and there was no negligence on part of driver of the lorry which was proceeding ahead of the innova car and further contended the driver of the lorry was not having effective driving license at the time of accident. The compensation and the interest claimed is exorbitant and prayed the learned Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.4 filed separate counter affidavit and reiterated the averments made by the respondent No.2 and further contended that respondent No.4 did not issue any insurance policy to the car in respect of the alleged cover note mentioned in the petition. The cover note bearing No. 209000076957 was issued against a new two wheeler vehicle bearing No.AP-29-N-6500 with engine No.06F08M58548 and chassis No.06F09C23048 owned by one Venkat Reddy Nandikonda for which subsequently policy was issued against the cover note from 14.08.2009 to 13.8.2010. The Innova Car bearing No.AP-11-AD-7785 was never insured in the said cover note with this respondent No.4, hence prayed the learned Tribunal to exonerated the repsodnnet No.4 from liability.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under:

“1. Whether P.Manohar died in a motor accident due in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent drivi