HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel Sri V.M.Ramakrishna Reddy for the appellant/petitioner No.1 and Sri. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6/petitioner Nos.4 to 6.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner No.1 aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.222 of 2020, dated 20.11.2023.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

5. On 20.03.2020 at about 5.40 p.m., while the deceased viz., Suresh Kumar, was proceeding from Punjagutta towards Basheerbagh on his TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.TS- 09-EQ-6782 and when he reached near Ravindra Bharathi signal, a car bearing registration No.AP-10-BH-1719 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, due to which deceased received grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Global Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on the next day i.e., 21.03.2020.

5.1. That the Police, Saifabad Police Station registered a case as in Crime No.141/2020 under Sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 130(1) and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver of the crime vehicle and subsequently filed charge-sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle.

5.2. That the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the 2nd wife and son of the deceased through 2nd wife, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the claim petition against the driver, owner of crime vehicle, insurance company and also the respondent Nos.4 to 6 as respondents, who are the first wife and children of the deceased through first wife.

5.3. That the deceased was aged 43 years, hale and healthy as on the date of accident and was working as a deliveryman in Dhanvanthari Surgicals and earning Rs.18,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 6; that due to the sudden death of the deceased, they lost their earning member, love and affection.

6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the deceased collided against a bus which is proceeding in front of him and fell on the road; that respondent Nos.1 and 2 admitted the deceased in the hospital and took care of him until his relatives arrived there; that taking advantageous of the same, a false case was filed against them.

7. The respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, avocation, treatment taken and earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 further contended that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased, who was not having a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle.

8. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed their counter contending that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the accident that occurred on 20.034.2020 at 5.40 p.m., near Ravindrabharathi, Hyderabad, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent of Xcent Car bearing No.AP-10-BH-1719?

2. Whether V.Suresh Kumar sustained injuries in the said accident and died as a result of said injuries ?

3. Whether the petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 6 are entitled for compensation ? if so, what is the quantum of compensation and from which of the respondents ?

4. What relief