HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 24.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I 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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 26.03.2014 the deceased and his friend were coming to their Village from Hyderabad to attend the marriage of their friend, on a motor bike bearing No.AP-29-BS-7620 and when they reached near Government Model School, Sadashivanagar at about 9:30 a.m., they met with an accident due to wrong parking of a lorry bearing No.HR-47-B-6663 by its driver. It is their case that the driver of the said lorry stopped his lorry wrongly in a negligent manner on the National Highway without taking precautions, instead of parking it in the by-lane provided on the Highway. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying averments of the petition. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of motor bike as he did not observe the stationed lorry in the day light and that there is no negligence of the driver in parking the lorry.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurer also has filed written statement denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased and also further they denied the involvement of the crime vehicle. They further contended that there was contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike and also contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of lorry bearing No.HR-47-B/6663 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,84,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that there is negligence in parking the lorry. He further submitted that the deceased driver of the motor bike was solely responsible for the accident and that he drove his motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and that in the day light at about 9:30 a.m., he went and hit the stationed lorry, which was stopped on the left side of the road due to break down. He further argued that as per the rough sketch of the scene of offence in Ex.B2, the lorry was stopped on the left side of the road and it is also clearly evident from the FIR and charge sheet under Ex.A1 and A2 that there was no negligence in parking the lorry, but the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor bike. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amounts under various heads, while granting compensation to the claimants and thus, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the accident occurred just because the lorry was parked negligently on the high way and that ther