JUDGMENT

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “M.V.Act”), challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru in MVOP No.376 of 2012, dated 11.01.2018, wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.23,38,255/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization against their claim of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death of Mr.Vemulapalli Giridhara Kutumba Rao (herein after called as “deceased”), in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 15.07.2011 at 9.30 a.m, near Gangoor Janakiramaiah godowns on Bandar road, Penamaluru.

2. The appellants and the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company herein after referred to as petitioners and the 3rd respondent as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners are said to be the legal representatives of the deceased, filed petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, read with Rule 455 of the M.V.Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 15.07.2011 at about 9.30 a.m, near Janakiramaiah godowns, Penamaluru mandal of Penamaluru Police Station limits.

4. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the 1st petitioner is the wife, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children, and the petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. The petitioners submit that on 15.07.2011 morning, the deceased went to Vijayawada on his personal work on his Bajaj Chetak scooter, bearing No.AP 16 T 1394, and after completion of his work, while the deceased was returning to his house, when he reached near Gangoor Janakiramaiah godowns on Bandar road, at about 9.30 a.m one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 16 TA 2244 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following the traffic rules, and without blowing horn came and dashed the scooter of the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased fell on the road, and then the bus ran over the head of the deceased, consequently the deceased died on the spot. The petitioners submit that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, which belongs to the 2nd respondent, insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, and hired by the 4th respondent, 5th respondent Corporation. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as Deputy Mechanical Engineer in APSRTC at Avanigadda Depot, who used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, and the deceased used to cultivate Ac.20.00 of agricultural lands on lease, thereby used to get income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioners submit that the deceased was only the bread winner of the family, due to his death in a motor vehicle accident, they sustained huge loss, as the deceased died at the age of 55 years. They claimed compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- on various heads.

5. The 1st respondent/driver of offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent/owner of offending vehicle, and the 4th respondent/

Depot Manager of APSRTC remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement before the Tribunal, denying the accident, manner in which it was occurred, age and income of the deceased prior to the accident. It is the contention of the 3rd respondent that as per contents of FIR, accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who driven the vehicle without following the traffic rules. They submit that the Controller and Management of the offending bus hired with 4th respondent, 5th respondent Corporation, due to that they are not liable to pay compensation. They submit that the 1st respondent was not having valid driving license at the time of accident, thereby the respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 have violated the terms and conditions of the policy. They pray to dismiss t