THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2020 & X-OBJ No.33 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 202 is filed by the Insurance Company and Cross Objection is filed by the claimants against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Prl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2017, dated 13.01.2020.

2. Heard K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAMCA -Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Sri Bandamidi Swamy, learned counsel for the appellants in Cross objection. Perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased i.e., Husband of the appellant No.1, who died in the accident alleged to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the harvester bearing registration No.AP- 29-BH-2259. It is contended that, on 06.05.2017 at about 09.00 a.m., the deceased went to his agricultural land to harvest the paddy. The driver of harvester drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in rash, and high passed dashed the deceased due to which, the deceased fell down and one tyre of the harvester ran over the body of the deceased, as a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.60/2017, against the lorry driver under Section 304-A of IPC. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 46 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing Agricultural work and due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioner have become destitute and lost their dependency for which claimants claimed Rs.20,00,000/-, as compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1, who is owner-cum-driver of the offender vehicle 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, however submitted that he being owner of the harvester and also admitted that the harvester insured with respondent No.2, as such he claimed that respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation, if any. Respondent No.2 has also filed counter-affidavit and contended that there was a violation of mandatory provisions under Section 143 (c) of M.V.Act, since the respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of the policy date, time, place of accident, particulars of injury and name of the driver and driving license particulars and also denied the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. 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 accident that occurred on 06.05.2017 at about 09.00 am, at agriculture land of the Sitharam Reddy near Pullemla Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of harvester bearing No.AP-29-BH-2259, by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, what quantum and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. 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 in part and granted compensation of Rs.19,90,000/- along with interest @

7.5% per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal and cross appeal are filed by both the claimants and respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants submi