THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.239 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance company aggrieved by the award dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.244of 2016.

3. The claim petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of one Mididoddi Anil @ Anil Kumar in a road traffic accident which occurred on 18.12.2015 in the morning hours when the deceased went to Huzurabad on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.TS-02-EF-3559. When the deceased was returning home, at about 10.10 hours, when the vehicle reached Jyothi Rice Mill on the outskirts of Bornapalli village, one school bus bearing No.AP-15-TB-7790 driven by respondent No.4 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle in opposite direction casing death of the deceased on the spot.

4. As per facts deposed by respondents/claimants, the deceased was aged about 23 years and had income of Rs.10,000/- per month by running tuitions and supplying milk from the buffaloes.

5. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,33,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and directed the appellant and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to pay the said compensation jointly and severally. The same is challenged by the appellant herein questioning its liability and quantum of the compensation.

6. According to the appellant, the Tribunal arrived at erroneous conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4. Further, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. No.TS-02-EF-3559, which was driven by the deceased at the time of accident. Further, the quantum of compensation awarded is questioned by the appellant as there is no income proof of the deceased earning Rs.10,000/- per month from tuitions. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, the appellant challenged the impugned award.

7. The entire police record marked under Exs.A1 to A5, i.e. certified copies of FIR, Inquest report, MVI report, PME report and charge sheet disclose that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP-15-TB-7790 which was used as school bus by Mathru Sri Instituions. Further, the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 also points at the negligence of the driver of the Swaraj Mazda but not the deceased. Even assuming for a moment that there is negligence on the part of the deceased as well, in case of death and when there is more than one vehicle involved, the claimants are entitled to proceed against the owner and insurer of all the vehicles involved or any one of the vehicle involved. When the police record shows that the accident is caused by the respondent No.4 who was driving the crime vehicle, when the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are on record, there can be no challenge to the maintainability of the claim petition for non-joinder of the driver and insurer of motorcycle which the deceased was driving.

8. With respect to income of the deceased, PW1 i.e. mother of the deceased deposed that his son had income of Rs.10,000/- per month from tuitions and milk business. Whereas the FIR registered based on the complaint filed by the father of the deceased shows that the deceased was sitting idle at home after completing his degree. Since the deceased was a degree holder, the notional income could have been taken more than that of a daily wage labour. In the absence of evidence, there are no grounds to take income at Rs.11,000/- per month more so when PW1 herself deposed that her son earned R