THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.542 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants/petitioners filed the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.717 of 2007, dated 08.11.2011, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of MVS.Prasad (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2), (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 18.02.2007.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed O.P.No.717 of 2007 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 driver of the goods carrier. It is contended that on 18.02.2007, at about 9:00 PM the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP9-AQ- 1410 from his residence at Kukatpally to his relatives house at Ramachandra Puram and at about 09:00 PM when he reached near Anu Furniture Chandra Nagar, then the goods carrier bearing No.RJ-14-G-7921 which was proceeding from Lingampally side from Kukatpally, dashed the motorcycle. The driver of the said goods carrier drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which he fell down and the lorry ran over him resulting in spot death of the deceased.

4. The Police, Chandanagar registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2007 against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

5. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that petitioners lost their bread winner due to the accident and their future has become dark, and the petitioners has to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation.

6. Respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle filed counter- affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the driver of the lorry had valid licence and respondent No.1 is no way concerned with the claim and respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Limited filed 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 further submitted that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no liability on the part of respondent No.2 to pay compensation and respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of policy, date etc., as per the provisions of the M.V Act and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the pleaded accident was occurred on 18.02.2007 at 21:00 hours in front of Anu Furniture, Chandanagar causing Mallikarjuna Rao due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata LPR 1612 make, 1996 model Goods Carrier No.RJ-14-G-7921 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

8. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondents.

9. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

10. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation a