HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

JUDGMENT:

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P. aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.577 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum – Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act –cum- VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, the Tribunal) and seeking to set-aside the same by allowing the Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who are wife and children of the deceased-U.Shekar had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-U.Shekar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.06.2012. It is stated by the petitioners that on 08.06.2012, when the deceased was going to attend a function at Khajipally at 12.00 noon and when he reached cross roads on his friend’s Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AH 0355 to meet a friend near Dhundigal Thanda, the driver of one Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from back side. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. Based on a complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.310 of 2012 under Section 304-A IPC. The applicants further stated that the deceased was aged 28 years and was hale and healthy before the accident and used to work as Hamali and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the family. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their bread winner and finding it very difficult to eke out their livelihood and hence filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- towards the death of the deceased.

4. Respondent No.1 filed her counter stating that the Alto car in question is not responsible for the accident and it is the lorry near Dundigal outer ring road which caused the accident and resulted in the death of the deceased and hence, in the absence of the involvement of their vehicle, the claim made against them is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It also denied the occurrence and manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle in question, age, wages of the deceased, denied that the driver of Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 has valid license and subsisting insurance policy as on the date of accident and that the deceased had valid driving license to drive the Hero Honda Motorcycle No.AP 28 AH 0355 as on the date of accident and that the compensation claimed is highly excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against them.

6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No.AP 28DG

5433?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

If so, from whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A9 were got marked on their behalf . On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked in support of them.

8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence adduced on both sides and perusing the documents available on record, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. The Respondents are directed to deposit the said compensation within two months from the date of order.

9. Aggrieved by the