THE HON'BLE 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.13 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Siricilla (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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 16.10.2012 at about 4:45 p.m., the deceased-K. Naryana was going on motor bike bearing No.AP-15-AZ-2497 along with pillion rider- Ganagoni Laxmi and in the mean time, an auto trolley bearing No.AP-15-TA-6417 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor bike of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and died while he was being shifted to the hospital. Thus, the petitioner has claimed Rs.7,00,000/- of compensation.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the auto trolley have jointly filed a counter denying the averments of the petition. They further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the auto trolley, but it occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased himself and that in case if they are held liable, it is the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.3 who has to pay compensation.

5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments and also further contended that the driver of the auto trolley did not have valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further contended that the accident occured due to the rash and negligence of the deceased, but not due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the auto trolley.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-15-TA-6417 driven by its driver/respondent No.1?

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

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RWs

1 and 2 were examined Exs.B1 to B10 are marked.

8. Based on the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.11,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 24.03.2021, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding more compensation than what is claimed by the appellant and that the liability is only on the owner of the auto and that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the Insurance company with a liability. He further submitted that as on the date of accident i.e., on 16.10.2012 the Insurance Policy was not issued and therefore, their company is not liable. He further contended that the owner of the auto failed to produce the original cover note, despite receiving notice under Ex.B8. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot rely upon the attested copy of the Cover Note produced by the owner as Ex.B1 is the fake one and thus, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the same. He further contended that since the accident occurred due to head on collusion between the motor bike and trolley, the Tribunal ought to have held that there was contributory negligence of the deceased.

He further argued that the income of the deceased is also excessively assessed by the Tribunal and the compensation arrived at is much more than the claim of the petitioners and therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted t