THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal under Section

173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the Award and decree passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1628 of 2015, dated 08.05.2020, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death S.Gopikrishna, (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in accident occurred on

04.06.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.1628 of 2015 under Section 166 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 car driver. It is contended that on 04.06.2015, the petitioner No.1(father of deceased) and deceased were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BJ-4417 from Kunlur Village towards Bandlaguda and when they reached Shivapuri colony bus stop, one Honda Amaze car bearing No.TS-07-EC-0387 which was coming from opposite direction being driven by its river in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came and dashed the deceased motorcycle, as a result deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No.717of 2015 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of offending Honda Amaze. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 17 years at the time of accident and was studying intermediate. The deceased was hale and healthy and due to the said accident, the petitioners suffered mental agony and pain and lost their entire future and hopes reposed on the deceased. The petitioners claimed compensation for Rs.8,00,000/- for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the offending car filed counter affidavit which was adopted by respondent No.2- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and denied all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that offending vehicle driver was also minor and was tried as a juvenile and acquitted of the charges by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

5. Before learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the respondents contended that actually the deceased was driving the vehicle but not petitioner No.1 (father of the deceased) at the time of accident and the deceased was not having valid license and insurance of the vehicle and also contended the deceased there was head on collusion between the offending car and the motorcycle, however the police were managed to book case against the car only in order to help the claim of the petitioners by suppressing as to who drove the motorcycle at the time of accident. It is further contended that the accident concurred was due to rash ad negligent driving of the deceased who was minor and was not eligible to ride a geared motorcycle. Respondent No.2 reiterated the same averment before the Tribunal, and submitted that respondent No.3- who is son of respondent No.1 was holding driving licence as on the date of accident. In fact, the police had charge sheeted against respondent No.3 under Section 181 of M.V.Act. The respondent No.1 committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, hence respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition