HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2615 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased-M. Venkataiah along with his friend started from Polepally to return to Hyderabad on 04.07.2014 in a car bearing No.AP-09-CA-9067 and on the way at about 9:00 p.m., when they reached near India Petrol Bunk on the outskirts of Kondurg Village, the car met with an accident as it went and hit against the tamarind tree and fell down in the dig, due to which Venkataiah and his friend sustained grievous injuries and Venkataiah died on the spot. Therefore, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition and that the petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the Section does not cover the risk of own fault committed by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and that as per the claim petition itself, the deceased was driving the car and dashed against the road side tamarind tree, due to his own negligence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.AP-09-CA-9067 causing death of deceased-M.

Venkataiah?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 got examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

11. Heard the submission of Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for No.2.

12. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court for awarding just compensation, and that though the deceased was not the owner as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has held the deceased to be the owner of the car and has limited the award amount to Rs.2,00,000/- stating that Personal Accident Coverage is limited under the Policy to that extent in case of the owner-cum-driver. He further argued that the agriculture income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and that by following the guidelines under the National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &

Others¹, the compensation ought to have been awarded.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the deceased has purchased car one month prior to the accident, but failed to transfer the R.C into his name and the said fact is elicited through the evidence of PW1 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased is the owner-cum-

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

driver of the car, and that under the said Policy, the risk of the owner-cum-driver is limited to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, prayed to uphold the orders passed by the Tribunal.

14. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle as on the date of the accident?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

3. Whether the