THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.505 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant-United National Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short (‘the Act, 1988’), aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 28.10.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

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

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) that the petitioners filed a claim-petition under Section

166 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 read with Section 140 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Mr. K. Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.10.2017. It is stated that on 19.10.2017 while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 20 TA 2578 as a passenger along with his friend from Narayanpuram towards Sathupally and when they reached near Sai Balaji Function Hall, Sathupally Village and Mandal, the respondent driver of the TATA lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 7638 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in wrong direction and dashed the said auto due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

(ii) Basing on a complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.307 of 2017 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of the said vehicle.

(iii) Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sathupally, but he died on 19.10.2017 while undergoing treatment.

(iv) that the deceased was working as Bike Mechanic and water servicing at Gangaram of Sathupally Mandal and getting salary of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioners, who are the wife and mother of the deceased, are dependent on the income of the deceased and on account of the death of the deceased they lost their source of income. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum payable by respondent, who is the insurer of the Lorry.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, age, avocation and income of the deceased and financial family conditions of the deceased. Further, it is contended by the respondents that the driver of the said lorry was not holding driving license and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the owner and insurer of the said auto in which the deceased was travelling are not impleaded by the petitioners as such the cliam-petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and the claim made by the petitioners being higher side and they are not entitled for the compensation.

5. Basing on the averments made in the petition and counter, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim late K. Gandhi, S/o. Mathyualu, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 7638?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-

insurance policy was marked.

7. Having considered the entire evidence placed by the petitioners, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry and taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded an amount of Rs.12,99,000/- together with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respon