J U D G M E N T:

Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.01.2019 (impugned Order) passed in O.P.No.1719 of 2010 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XIV Addl. Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short “the Tribunal”), appellant-Insurance company preferred the present Appeal praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order.

02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.

03. Brief facts of the case are that:

The petitioners, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Md. Mazar Khan (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,71,304.85ps. on account of death of deceased who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on

19.11.2009.

04. According to petitioners, on 19.11.2009 at about 12.30 hours, when the deceased was going from Bandlaguda towards Santoshnagar on his Scooter bearing No.AP 11 G 9181, on the way near DRDL 2nd Gate, a lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 4626 going in the same direction with sand behind the Scooter of the deceased, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the Scooter, as a result of which, the deceased received head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, where, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Based on the complaint, the police, Chandrayangutta registered a case in Crime No.367 of 2009 against the driver of the lorry.

05. It is further contended by petitioners that the deceased was aged 33 years as on the date of accident and working as Supervisor/Technician in M/s. Universal Refrigeration and Electrical (P) Limited and was earning Rs.11,200/- per month. It is contended that due to sudden death of the deceased, petitioners have lost their source of income and suffered mental agony. Respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of crime lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners.

06. Respondent No.1/owner of the lorry did not contest the case before the learned Tribunal and remained exparte.

07. Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments of claim application including the age, avocation, income and manner of accident and further contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the Scooter and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the lorry driver. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

08. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:

i. Whether the pleaded accident dated 19.11.2009 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 4626 and whether the deceased Mohd.

Mazhar Khan died due to the said accident?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of the respondents?

iii. To what relief ?

09. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got examined PWs 2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of respondent No.2- Insurance company, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

10. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding compensation of Rs.12,97,455/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

11. Challenging the impugned Order, appellant-

respondent N