THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICENARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/Insurance Companyunder Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’) against the order and decree, dated 29.08.2019,in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2018 passed by learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’)wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,91,060/- with interest @7.5% per annum to the claimants.

2. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Ms.VladimeerKhatoom, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2. Perused the record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are father and unmarried sister of the deceased Pathlavath Srinu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 475 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents on account of death of the deceased in a road traffic accident.

5. On 14.11.2017 at about 07.30 PM, while the deceased was proceeding from Shadnagar towards Balyanayak Tanda on a Motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-DA-1697 and when he reached near Nagireddy Agricultural Land in the outskirts of Peddarevalli, respondent No.1, being the driver of tractor-cum-harvester bearing No.AP-22-AG-2674 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased from wrong side. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot.

6. Basing on the complaint, the police Balanagar registered a case in Crime No.161 of 2017 under Section 304 (A) of IPC. It is stated that due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their earning member in the family and also lost love and affection in the family. It is further stated that the petitioners also facing mental shock and agony and hence, the petitioners filed claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents, who are driver, owner and insurer respectively of the crime vehicle.

7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

8. Respondent No.3 –Insurance Company filed counter-

affidavit denying all the averments made in the petition including the method and manner of accident, age, income, profession of the deceased and insurance coverage of the crime vehicle, valid and effective driving licence of both the deceased and the driver of the crime vehicle and dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased. It is stated that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the deceased only and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not added as parties to the claim petition and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is on higher side and hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

9. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“(i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., Sri Pathlavath Srinu S/o Harya, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor-cum-harvester bearing No.AP-22-AG-2674, make :John Deere Equipment Pvt., Ltd., Model : 2011?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum?

(iii) To what relief?”

10. In support of the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of respondent No.3, R.W.1 examined and Ex.B.1-Insurance policy was marked.

11. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the counsel and after considering the entire material on record, held that respondent No.2, being owner and respondent No.3, being insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,91,060/- with