JUDGMENT :

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J.

The present Appeal is filed, aggrieved by order, dated 01.05.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum I Additional District & Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram by Oriental Insurance Company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred in the claim petition.

3. The petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing a petition, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-, on account of death of one Sri Kandella Rajaabbai, who succumbed to injuries in the accident that occurred, on 03.05.2016, in which the Tractor cum Trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 05 BL 6432 & AP 05 Y 4709 respectively, were involved.

4. It was the case of the petitioners that, on 03.05.2016, the deceased Sri Kandella Rajaabbai, boarded Maxi Cab bearing registration No.AP 05 TC 3658 so as to attend coolie works, when the Maxi Cab was proceeding towards Dharmavaram, the offending Tractor cum Trailer came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, driven by the 4^th respondent and dashed the Maxi Cab. As a result of which, the wooden logs carried by the Trailer fell on the Maxi Cab, thereby, the inmates of the Maxi Cab, sustained severe injuries and the deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.59 of 2016 was registered under Section 304-A I.P.C., on the file of Prathipadu Police Station. It was further case of the petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 54 years as on the date of accident. It was further stated that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- to 600/- per day, by engaging in coolie works, and at an average he used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. The entire earnings of the deceased were being contributed to the family and in view of the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their financial support, love and affection of the deceased. The deceased was the husband of the first petitioner and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased.

5. The respondents 1 & 2 remained ex parte. The 3^rd respondent/appellant filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was further denied the manner in which the accident said to have been occured. The 3^rd respondent further denied the age and occupation, including the income of the deceased. It was further stated that the driver of the offending Tractor had no valid driving license, and as such, the 3^rd respondent, is not entitled to pay compensation. It was further contended that the Maxi Cab was proceeding with over load of passengers and the driver of the offending Tractor was not responsible for occurrence of the accident. It was further stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The respondents 4 & 5 i.e., owner and driver of the Maxi Cab remained ex parte.

7. The 6^th respondent – insurer of the Maxi Cab filed counter-affidavit, stating that the offending Tractor cum Trailer was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It was further stated that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maxi Cab, as such, if at all any compensation was to be paid, the liability has to be fixed on the 3^rd respondent – Oriental Insurance Company. It was further contended that the respondents 4 to 6 were arrayed as formal parties to the claim petition, as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation in as much as the negligence was on the part of the driver of the Tractor cum Trailer.

8. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and daughter namely Smt. Rajala Chinnatalli was examined as P.W.2. The petitioners have also filed documentary evidence and the same were marked as Exs.A1 to A11. An employee of the 3^rd respondent - Oriental Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1 and marked a copy of the policy in Ex.B.1. Considering the oral