JUDGMENT :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’) aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 13.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.171 of 2016 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Vallabhi Hanumantha Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a fatal accident occurred on 26.06.2014.

3. The 1st claimant is wife, 2nd claimant and 3rd claimants are daughters of the deceased. On 26.06.2014 at about 2:00 PM, one Kondabala Ramesh and the deceased were proceeding to Khammam on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-N-6863 to purchase cotton seeds and when they reached Venkatagiri X Roads, near Supraja Rice Mill on R&B main Road leading from Mudigonda to Khammam, meanwhile one Tractor & Trailer bearing No.AP-20-TC-2109 & 4767 proceeding in the same direction came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of it, the deceased (pillion rider) fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries on vital parts of the body and died on the spot.

4. On receipt of complaint, police Khammam Rural registered a case in Crime No.381 of 2014 under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. against the driver of the crime vehicle.

5. The deceased was aged about 56 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of accident and doing agriculture work and used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Apart from agriculture work, he is also doing coolie work and used to earn a sum of Rs.300/- per day and contributing the same for welfare of his family. The claimants are residing in joint family under one roof. Due to sudden death of deceased, the 1st claimant lost her conjugal happiness and other claimants lost their love and affection of the deceased.

6. The appellant is the insurance company and respondent No.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer, as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.4 owner of the vehicle did not choose to file counter and finally reported no counter.

7. The appellant-insurance company filed counter-affidavit inter alia contending that the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is also stated that the appellant denied about involvement of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-20-TC-2109 & AP-20-TA-4767 in the accident. It is also denied about the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the manner of accident as narrated in the petition. It is stated that the driver of Tractor & Trailer was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and that the vehicle was not fit and it was not road worthy. It is further contended that the 1st respondent did not inform about the accident to the 2^nd respondent and he did not furnish any such information about the policy. It is also contended that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant and that the driver of the said tractor and trailer was not holding any valid driving licence. It is stated that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties, owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-N6863. The insurance company did not issue any policy cover Note No.00660029292504 which was valid from 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2014 and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial:

(i) Whether the driver of Tractor & Trailer bearing No.AP-20-TC-2109 & AP-20-TA-4767 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased-Vallab