THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the Appellant/Insurance Company/respondent No.1 against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, Nizamabad) (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.P.No.35 of 2007, dated 19.09.2011, wherein claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of Meka Manohar, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on

17.11.2006.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant filed O.P.No.35 of 2007 under Section 166(1)(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Lorry. It is contended that on 17.11.2006 while deceased was returning from school to the house at about 4.30 P.M., from a cycle, lorry bearing No. AP-09/C-0741 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased at Subashnagar, Nizamabad. As a result, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the offending Lorry.

4. The contention of the claimant was that, the deceased was aged about 14 years, studying 9^th class in Holy Mary School, Subashnagar, Nizamabad. Apart from his studies, the deceased was selling milk in the morning and evening and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and same was contributing to the welfare of the family and due to his sudden death, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 who were parents of the deceased lost love and affection of their son and the claimants was put to suffer mental agony, pain and irreparable loss and loss of future dependency. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 (owner of the Lorry) filed counter affidavit and contended that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-09/X-0741 by its driver and also contributory negligence of the deceased who was pedalling the cycle on the national high way without observing the traffic rules. Respondent No.1 (The United India Insurance Company Limited) also filed counter affidavit that denying the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, and submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

1. Whether the accident was the resultant and outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-9/741 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what just amount and from which of respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,03,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the colossal compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/appellant/respondent No.1 on the ground that the cleaner of the lorry driver was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as per the Ex.A13 which clearly demonstrate that the cleaner was driving the vehicle at the material time of accident without a driving license and the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as there was no driving license to the person driving the offending veh