HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU M.A.C.M.A.NO.754 of 2021 AND M.A.C.M.A.NO.618 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT :

The parties in OP.No.496 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, being aggrieved by the Award dated 21-01-2021, where under, the Court having accepted the contentions of claimants about the accident and death of one Bathula Kumari in a road traffic accident, awarded compensation of Rs.8,36,600/-, filed two separate miscellaneous appeals, one by the Insurance Company and the other by the claimants.

2. MACMA.No.754 of 2021 has been filed by the 3^rd respondent in OP.No.496 of 2017 namely United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager assailing the award and sought for setting aside the award. Whereas, MACMA.No.618 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners of the above said O.P. questioning the quantum of compensation and sought for enhancement of the same on different grounds. Since both the appeals arose out of the same award, it would be convenient to dispose of both the and MACMA No.618 of 2021 appeals under a common judgment, thereby, this common judgment.

3. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the appellants in the two appeals, it is necessary to examine the contentions raised by them before the Tribunal through MVOP.No.496 of 2017. For convenience sake and to avoid the confusion, the parties will be referred to in the same ranking which was shown in the above said MVOP.No.496 of 2017. The following is the brief case of petitioners before the Court below.

4. On 15-05-2017, one Bathula Kumari, hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased’ and her relative by name Orsu Raju had been to Jaggaiahpet town on a motor-cycle bearing No.TS 05 EK 6602 and after completing their work, they returned from Jaggaiahpet to Dondapadu village on the same motor-cycle. The bike was driven by Raju, whereas, deceased was the pillion rider. The petitioners have claimed that Raju was riding the bike in a slow manner by following traffic rules and when they reached the outskirts of Mukthyala village at about 1:30 p.m., the driver of a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TH 3989 which was coming in the opposite direction, drove the lorry in high-speed, in a rash and negligent and MACMA No.618 of 2021 manner and dashed the motor-bike due to which both rider and pillion rider fell on the road, received serious head injuries, fractures over the body and died on the spot. The motorcycle was completely damaged. The petitioners have claimed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry and they filed MVOP.No.496 of 2017 against the driver, owner of the vehicle and insurance company from which a policy was obtained and sought for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of said Kumari. It appears from the record that the dependants of said Orsu Raju, the rider of the motorbike also filed another petition vide MVOP.No.495 of 2017 and sought for compensation. Out of the three respondents, respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

5. The insurance company disputed the contentions raised by the petitioners. According to the contention of the 3^rd respondent, it was alleged that the owner of the vehicle failed to furnish the particulars of insurance policy, time, place of the accident, particulars of the injured, thereby, violated the mandatory provisions of Section 134 (c) of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘M.V.Act’). There was failure on the part of the owner of the vehicle in furnishing the details which amounts to violation of and MACMA No.618 of 2021 Section 158 (6) of M.V.Act. They have also claimed that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid and effective license. The owner of the lorry who had a statutory obligation to see that the driver of the vehicle has valid license before allowing him to drive the vehicle, failed to observe the same. The 3^rd respondent further contented that the compensation claimed by the petitioner