THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant-Insurance Company-respondent No.2 against the order and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No.55 of 2016 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of death of the daughter of respondent Nos.1 and 2- claimants, namely, A. Gangamani, (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’), who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 09.01.2015.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2015 at about 3.45 PM, the deceased was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 1 X 6677 along with other passengers from Indanpalli village to Khanapur and when they reached near Peddur Thanda village, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 25 T 3497 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto in the opposite direction, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on her head, chest, ribs and other vital parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Khanapur Hospital for treatment, but died on the way to the hospital. A case was registered by the Police, Kaddam in crime No.3 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry and charge sheet also filed making the driver of the lorry responsible for the accident.

4. It was further contended by the claimants that as on the date of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 18 years and was earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day as a coolie. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost their beloved daughter and also the love and affection. As such, the claimants claimed Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents.

5. The respondent No.3-Owner of the crime vehicle-lorry bearing No.AP 25 T 3497 died and respondent No.4, being the wife of the respondent No.3, brought on record as his legal heir.

6. The respondent No.2 – M/s.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was also further averred that the auto driver was carrying eight passengers, more than the permitted number and that the accident occurred as he could not control the auto and the owner and insurer of the auto, being the proper and necessary party was not added as parties and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further averred that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. The other respondents did not choose to file counters or contest the petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

i) Whether the deceased A. Gangamani had died in a road accident that occurred on 09.01.2015 at about 3.45 p.m., at outskirts of Peddur Thanda village, on NH. No.61 BT road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 25T 3497 by respondent No.3?

ii) Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 25T 3497 is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

iii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the auto rickshaw bearing No. AP1X6677 as necessary party?

iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whi