THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/respondent No.2-insurance company filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act- cum-VII Additional District Judge at Khammam (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.886 of 2017, dated 24.01.2020, wherein the respondents/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of 1^st petitioner husband, namely Sri Koppula Prem Chand, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 21.01.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein filed M.V.O.P.No.886 of 2017 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 driving of the Tata Ace trolley driver. It is contended that on 21.01.2016, the deceased, along with B.Kumar, were returning to his village in the same vehicle and on the way when they reached Pindiprolu village, at about 4:30 am, the driver of the said trolley drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without taking proper care and caution hit the stationed tipper from behind, as a result, the deceased and other occupants of trolley sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Khammam, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2016 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle.

3. The contention of claimants was that, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.500/- per day by working as centring worker in and around Kondapally. Due to the said accident, the claimants lost their dependency. Claimants therein claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of the deceased.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.6/respondent No.1 therein the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The appellant/respondent No.2 – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter-affidavit, denying 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 the driver of the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether the driver of TATA ACE Trolley bearing registration No.AP 07TC 7344 drove the trolley auto in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased-Koppula Prem Chand, while he was travelling in said trolley auto?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount? If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

iii) To what relief?

6. 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 and granted compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum making the respondents therein jointly and severally liable for compensation.

7. Challenging the said award and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company on the ground that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, as the driver of the said crime vehicle does not have a valid license, which amounts to violation of the conditions of the policy. In spite of issuing of notice to the owner- cum-driver of the vehicle to produce a driving license, the sa