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 appellants-petitioners against the order and decree dated 31.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No.461 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I-Additional District Judge, Warangal, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the appellants, who are the parents and younger brother of one Bejjanki Mukesh, (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) 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.10,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle accident occurred on

09.05.2016.

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 09.05.2016 while the deceased was riding a motor cycle along with a pillion rider and proceeding to Kuravi village from Maripeda on Warangal Khammam Highway road and when they reached in front of Hero Show Room, Maripeda Bungalow, around

4.35 PM, a lorry bearing No.TS 02 UA 0999 driven by its driver- respondent No.1 proceeding from Warangal side to Khammam, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside, as a result, the deceased and pillion rider fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries and the deceased died on the spot. It was further contended by the petitioners that as on the date of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 20 years and assisting his father in running chicken shop and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners being parents and brother have lost their source of dependency and love and affection.

4. A case was registered by the Police, Maripeda in crime No.96 of

2016 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry. In view of the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the crime vehicle, did not contest the case. The respondent No.3-The National Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the age, income, avocation and health conditions of the deceased at the time of the accident and also the manner in which the accident occurred and the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry though admitting that the said lorry was insured with them. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioners was highly excessive and arbitrary.

6. It was further contended by respondent No.3 that the respondent No.1 did not inform to the police nor forwarded the copy of the FIR to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within time as per law and that the respondent No.3 Company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

i) Whether the death of the deceased was caused in the motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing No.TS 02 UA 0999?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, the petitioners examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

9. After going into the merits of the case and after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties and the submissions of both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. TS 02 UA 0999 by its driver and awarded an amount of Rs.7,28,000/- as compensation by taking the income of