THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants/petitioners filed the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the II Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.230 of 2014, dated 21.01.2020, seeking compensation of Rs. 26,60,000/- on account of the death of A.Balreddy (father of petitioners), (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 26.05.2012.

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 M.V.O.P.No.229 of 2014 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 car. It is contended that on 26.05.2012, at about 11:00 PM the deceased was slowly driving the motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-R- 2831 from Dammaiguda to Champapet along with her children (petitioners) and when they reached near ECIL Ground, suddenly a Car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed the petitioners’ motor cycle. As a result, the deceased, her wife who was pillion rider and petitioners fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased and others were shifted to Tulasi Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 27.05.2012. The Police registered a case in Crime No.360 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.26,60,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that petitioners lost their parent 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. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – filed counter contended that he sold the car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909 to Harsha Auto Mall Private Limited to that extent, the said authorities issued hand over letter, dated 12.2.2012 in favour of him and in turn sold the said vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 and registered in her name and delivery receipt dated 09.04.2012, vide ate pass receipt No.14992, dated 09.04.2012. The respondent No.1 has become owner of said vehicle and submits that respondent No.2 is no way concerned with the said offending car. Respondent No.3 – Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, also file 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 driver of the offending car did not have valid and subsisting driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle was not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant 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 A.Balreddy died in the accident took place due to the rash ad negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909.?

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

iii) To what relief?

7. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8. RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondents, and Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

8. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petit