J U D G M E N T:

Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the dismissal Order dated 13.07.2018 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.589 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Khammam, (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellants-claim petitioners 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 claim petitioner Nos.1 to 3 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, who are wife and children of Sri B. Mutyalu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest on account of death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 21.01.2014.

04. According to claim petitioners, on 21.01.2014 at about 08:30 AM., while the deceased was chatting with M.Chatari near the house of Seetharamulu at Seetharampuram Village, respondent No.1 proceeding on his Hero Splendor Motorcycle bearing No. AP 20 AP 2640 in rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down sustained head injury and he was shifted to Singareni Collieries Company Hospital, Yellandu and later shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad and died on 05.02.2014 while undergoing treatment. The Police, Karepally registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2014 for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and later on the Section of Law was altered to Section 304-A of IPC against respondent No.1.

05. It is further contended by claim petitioners that the deceased was aged about 54 years at the time of accident and he was an Employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Yellandu and earning Rs.27,000/- per month and used to contribute for the welfare of the family and that claim petitioners lost their sole breadwinner and his love and affection and they claimed compensation of Rs 25,00,000/- along with interest and that respondent No.1 being owner-cum-driver and respondent No.2 being insurer are liable to pay compensation to claim petitioners.

06. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the claim petition averments and further denied the accident, involvement of his vehicle, age, income and profession of the deceased, injuries sustained by the deceased and treatment undergone by the deceased. It is further contended that the accident was caused on account of gross negligence of the deceased who himself was in an inebriated condition. It is also further contended that if any liability is fixed on respondent No.1, it is respondent No.2 who has to pay the compensation. The claim of claim petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim of claim petitioners against it.

07. Respondent No.2 filed counter and additional counter denying the averments of claim petition and further denied age, income, manner of accident, involvement of the deceased in the accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. It is contended that the deceased himself was responsible for occurrence of the accident who was chit-chatting on the road and crossing the road suddenly without observing the traffic. There is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of motorcycle and accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased. The driver of the motorcycle was not holding any license at the time of accident. The claim of claim petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim of claim petitioners against it.

08. Before the Tribunal, claim petitioners got examined petitioner No.1 as PW1, eyewitness to the accident as PW2 and also examined PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of respondents, RW1 to RW4 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B11.

09. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident