THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 30.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.420 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and 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 16.08.2013 the deceased boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP- 22-W-4838, when the auto reached near Rangaswamy Temple in the limits of Bhoothpur at about 7:20 p.m., it hit a Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-8789 which was parked in the middle of National Highway No.44 without taking any precautions such as lighting indicators, as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that there was no negligence of lorry driver and that he was never charged with any fine for wrong parking. It is further contended that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and thus respondent No.2 is only liable to pay compensation if any, awarded by the Court.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the lorry driver does not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the auto driver and thus, the owner and insurer of auto are liable to pay compensation and that their company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The respondent No.3 filed counter admitting that he is the owner-cum-driver of the auto, but contended that the accident has occurred only because the lorry was parked in a negligent manner in the middle of the National Highway without taking any precautions. He further contended that he was held to be accused in the case just due to the influence of respondent No.1/the owner of the lorry. It is further submitted that a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed on the driver of the lorry for its wrong parking.

7. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 16.08.2013 at about 7:20 p.m., near Munni Rangaswamy temple within the limits of Bhoothpur Village and Mandal occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-X-8789 by its driver on the middle of the national highway No.44 as a result of which the deceased who was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-22- W-4838 colluded with the said lorry sustained injuries and died in the said accident?

2. Whether crime vehicle lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-X-8789 is insured with the respondent No.2 company and the policy was in force as on the date of accident?

3. Whether the respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the crime vehicle who is a driver who is not having valid and effective driving license as contended by the respondent No.2?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 5. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.14,30,068/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem,