THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

06.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 11.12.2004 the deceased was going by walk by the side of the road to attend nature call and when he reached near Rekhula Bavi, Athvelli Village at about 6:00 p.m., in the mean time rider of one Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E-6278 came in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and lost control over it and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, wherein he succumbed to death at 1:00 a.m. It is their case that the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 36 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing Milk Business, Labour Work and also Agriculture. Thus, they sought a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying all the averments of petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the rider of the Scooter was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Subsequently, an amendment petition was filed by the petitioners amending Vehicle Number from AP-09-E-6278 to AP-9- E-6276 and following which the respondent No.2 has filed additional written statement stating that the said amendment was intentionally done by the petitioners as the said Scooter was not involved and it is falsely implicated in this case.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether on 11.12.2004 at about 6:30 p.m., near Rekhula Bavi at Athvelli Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.AP-9E-6278 by its driver?

2. Whether Kethavath Hanmanthu received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4. To what relief?

8. After amendment of the vehicle number by the petitioner, the issue No.1 was re-cast on 15.04.2019 as follows:- 1. Whether on 11.12.2004 at about 6:30 p.m., near Rekhula Bavi at Athvelli Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.AP-9E-6276 by its driver?

9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

10. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.8,26,000,/-. Aggrieved by the said award, M.A.C.M.A.No.77 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, while M.A.C.M.A.No.120 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.

11. Heard the submission of Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants.

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding huge compensation and that the claim petition is filed by the claimants in collusion with the owner of the Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E- 6276 and with the concerned Police. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to see that the alleged accident occurred on 11.12.2004, while the petition was filed in the year 2013, which is after nine years and that the said delay occurred as the accident itself has not taken place with the Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E- 6276. It is his further contention that the Police recorded the statement of the deceased and that he stated to the Police saying that while cro