THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the Insurance Company arising out of an order passed by The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum –Principal District Judge, Mancherial (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.25 of 2019 dated 30.06.2022.

2.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 – petitioner Nos.1 to 4 have filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- against respondent Nos.5 and 6 - owner and driver of the crime vehicle and appellant herein - respondent No.3 jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment for the accident of Vangapalli Laxman @ Lachaiah occurred on 25.07.2018 at 2.30 p.m.

2.2 Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Late Vangapalli Laxman @ Lachaiah.

3. On 25.07.2018 at about 2.30 p.m. Vangapalli Laxman @ Lachaiah was going in his auto bearing No.AP-15-A-7796 along with his cousin brother by name Chandragiri Thirupathi from Rajarampalli, after filling the diesel in his auto and when he reached near IKP Centre of Gollakota village of Velgatoor Mandal of Jagityal District, one auto trolley bearing No.TS-20T-2506 which was going from Rajarampalli to Jagityal came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the auto from backside due to which V.Laxman @ Lachaiah received bleeding injurious to his hands, legs and other parts of the body and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Jagityal, while undergoing treatment he died on 10.08.2018. Deceased was aged about 65 years as on the date of accident (25.07.2018), was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and was maintaining his family. On the complaint of respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1, police Velgatoor registered a case in Crime No.125/2018 against the driver of the crime vehicle (respondent No.6 herein) and filed charge sheet.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein) have filed their counter and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and the deceased might have died due to his own negligence. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein - petitioners have managed the police in order to get compensation and the crime vehicle is insured with the appellant herein - respondent No.3, prayed to dismiss the OP.

5. Insurance Company (appellant herein-respondent No.3) has filed counter and contended that the deceased was driving his auto bearing No.AP-15-A-7796 without taking precautionary measures and suddenly crossed the road. The driver of the crime vehicle controlled his auto trolley but the situation was beyond his control and the crime vehicle is no way concerned with the accident and it was implicated in the case. Claim petition is filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein - petitioners in collusion with respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein – respondent Nos.1 and 2, the compensation claimed is excessive, extraordinary and imaginary of all proportions and the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the death of the deceased was caused in accident on

25.07.2018 at 2.30 p.m., while proceeding in Auto Bearing No.AP15A7796 and was dashed by driver of Auto bearing No.TS20T-

2506 in high speed?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally?

3) To what relief?

7. Respondent No.1 herein -petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 - Chandragiri Thirupathi and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Driver of the crime vehicle was examined as RW1, Insurance Company has examined RW2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the parties has allowed the petition in part awa