JUDGMENT :

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant – Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order, dated 13.09.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar. The said M.V.O.P. was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was allowed by the Tribunal by granting an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with costs @

7.5% interest per annum.

2. The 3rd respondent in the above referred M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2010 had filed this appeal and sought for setting aside the order, dated 13.09.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2010 on the following grounds:

i) The Tribunal committed an error by awarding an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with costs by fastening the liability against the present appellant and other respondents. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no such accident and the respondents/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed a false petition for wrongful gain.

ii) The Tribunal also failed to appreciate that though there is an averment in the petition that Tata Sumo dashed the Hero Honda Motor Cycle which was driven by the deceased and his friend, neither the owner nor the Insurance Company of the Motor Cycle were added as parties to the petition. The driving license of the rider of the Motor Cycle was not filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was a collision between the Motor Cycle and Tata Sumo thereby the negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered that the Insurance Company of the Motor Cycle is a necessary party.

iii) The Tribunal committed an error in arriving the age and income of the deceased and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was clear violation of terms of the Insurance Policy thereby the appellant/respondent No.3 herein is not liable to pay any compensation. But the Tribunal fastened the partial liability on the appellant/respondent No.3 herein without appreciating that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive, therefore, it amounts to clear violation of the terms of Insurance Policy.

iv) The appellant/respondent No.3 claiming that the accident was occurred due to sole and contributory negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle on which the deceased was proceeding since the owner and Insurance Company are not added as parties the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary and proper parties. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim, as such sought for setting aside the impugned award.

3. The following was the brief case of respondents/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 vide their petition before the Tribunal:

i) One Edla Thirupathi, who was the deceased, was the son of respondents/petitioner Nos.1 and 2. On 24.05.2009 at about 3:30PM the deceased and his friend were proceeding on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-28-DA-0157 to meet their friend at Godavarikhani and when they reached near Padmanayaka old age home at the outskrits of Irukulla Village, the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-01-W-0765 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the Motor Cycle from the opposite direction, as a result, both the riders of the Motor Cycle received grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to the Government Civil Hospital, Karminagar, from which deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, however, he succumbed to injuries on 29.05.2009 while undergoing treatment. It seems that on receipt of a complaint, the police, Karimnagar Rural registered a case against the driver of the said Tata Sumo. The respondents/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., parents of the deceased have filed the said claim petition with a plea that the deceased was aged about 24 years with good hea