THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 23.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.194 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short “the Tribunal”)

2. For convenience a clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal was that on 19.02.2017 the deceased was going on a motor cycle along with a pillion rider by name Kummarikunta Laxman from Kagaznagar Peddawagu to Kagaznagar, and when they reached near Vinay Gardens on the outskirts of Kagaznagar at around 6:30 p.m., one Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-06-AB-7957 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor bike from behind, as a result the deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that their vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and that it would be only respondent No.3 who is responsible for paying compensation if any awarded by the Court as the policy was in force.

5. The respondent No.3 has also filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the rider of the motor bike did not have valid driving license and that the accident occurred only due to his negligence and that there was no negligence of the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-34-AM- 1630. It is further contended by them that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike and that the driver of Tata Sumo also did not possess valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo registration No.MH-34-AM-1630 driven by respondent No.1 and also due to negligent driving of TATA Sumo registration No.MH-06-AB-7957 driven by respondent No.4 and the

said accident resulted in death of deceased Mohammad Akbar?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so,

to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of

Motorcycle?

4. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.22,20,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and decree is contrary to the weight of evidence and that the tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on a proper perspective. He further argued that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-06-AB- 7957 and that the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are liable to pay compensation. He contended that the tribunal failed to consider that Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-06-AB-7957 has hit the motor bike of the deceased from behind and thus, the accident occurred due to its sole negligence. Therefore, the liability has to be fastened on the said owner and driver of Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-06-AB-7957. He further argued that the driver of Tata Sumo bearin