THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions (II FTC) Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.999 of 2013, dated 28.02.2020, wherein claimants/ respondents herein had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

2. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner-Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company and Ms. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.999 of 2013 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the S.Suresh (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) who died in the accident on 17.09.2013.

5. It is contended that on 17.09.2013, the deceased along with his co-worker while proceeding on Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BV- 4043 and when he reached at the outskirts of Aitipamula Village at about 2.30 A.M. due to lighting focus of opposite vehicles, the deceased could not observe the road divider and dashed motorcycle to the divider, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on chest, head and other vital parts of the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2013 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC against the rider of the motor cycle i.e., deceased. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

6. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as Welder in Infotech Company. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency.

7. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company, 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 submitted that deceased was the rider of the motorcycle and the risk is was not covered under the insurance company and further contended that deceased himself being the rider stepped into the shoes of the owner as such he cannot be said to be a third party within the meaning of M.V.Act. For self negligence no amount of compensation is liable to the paid and the provisions of Section 134 (c) and 158 (6) of M.V.Act were not complied and further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. 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 deceased by name S.Suresh died in accident due to rash ad negligent driving of driver of motorcycle bearing No.ap-28-BV-4043 ii) Whether the petitioner are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

9. During the course of enquiry, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5, on behalf of petitioner. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 was marked, on behalf of respondent No.2

10. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and after going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.7,04,678/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

11. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the grounds among the other grounds are that the claimants filed the claim petition under Secti