HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1510 OF 2024

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri. B.Balaji, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-claim petitioners.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the impugned award, dated 31.07.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.58 of 2023 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mahabubabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned order.

3. Appellant herein is the respondent No.2/insurance company, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claim petitioners 1 and 2, respondent No.3 herein is the respondent No.1, who is the driver- cum-owner of the crime vehicle, before the Tribunal. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

4.1. On 10.04.2023 at about 01.00 p.m., while the deceased– Vasam Varshith, aged 11 years, was returning to hostel along with his friend on a cycle and when they reached near house of Kunuja Venkanna on CC Road, a Tractor bearing registration No.TS-24- HTR-3347 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’), came at high speed in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle, as a result, they fell down and sustained injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The Police, Gudur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.56/2023 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 and filed charge sheet against him.

5. The claim petitioners i.e., the parents of the deceased filed claim petition against the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

6. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 11 years as on the date of accident; that he was hale and healthy and was studying 5^th class in Tribal Welfare School at Matwada village; that he is very sharp in the education and he was actively participated in the school games; that he has got bright future and due to untimely death of their son, they are put to great hardship and suffered mental agony and lost love and affection.

7. Respondent No.1, who is the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the petition averments and further contended that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the cyclist and there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1; that the crime vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2-insurance company and therefore, 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation.

8. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations of the claim petitioners with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident and the age of the deceased and further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not qualified for holding driving licence; that respondent no.1 did not inform to the insurance company about the accident and did not furnish the particulars of the deceased and that the claim of compensation is excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

9. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the deceased-Vasam Varshith died in motor vehicle accident ? If so, whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor bearing No.TS-24-

HTR-3347 ?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected ?

3) To what relief?

10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claim petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the 2^rd respondent-insuranc