HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and Mr. N.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, for respondent No.5 and as the appeal is filed only as to the apportionment of compensation between the insurance companies, the Appeal is heard and decided at the stage of admission.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2499 of 2014, dated 06.01.2021, thereby seeking to set-

aside the award against the appellant-insurance company.

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

4. On 06.11.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., while B.Raja Shekharam (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was proceeding on his Bajaj CT 100 Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-N-7282 from Aramghar to Durga Nagar and when he reached Sai Baba Nagar cross-roads, one Motor Cab (Auto) bearing registration No.AP-28- TV-0289 coming from Saibaba Nagar in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and unfortunately at the same time, one lorry bearing registration No.MH-34-AB-4986 which came from Aramghar in rash and negligent manner ran over the head of the deceased, due to which, head of the deceased was crushed and died on the spot.

4.1. The Police, Shivarampally Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered a case in Crime No.653/2012 under Section 304-A IPC against both the drivers of the Motor Cab as well as the lorry and filed charge sheet and the proceedings were pending trial before the competent Court.

5. The claimants, i.e., wife and son of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the owners of the Motor Cab and Lorry and their respective insurers - insurance companies under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, r/w Rule 475/1B of MV Rules, 1989 read with Sections 163-A and 140-C of the MV Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.75,40,000/- together with costs and interest from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 51 years and was working as Marketing Manager in M/s.SAN PRINTECH PVT.LTD., at Andheri (W), Mumbai, operating from Hyderabad branch on a monthly salary basis @ Rs.35,000/- and contributing the same to the welfare of the claim petitioners. It is contended by the claimants before the Tribunal, that due to death of the deceased, the claim petitioners lost their love and affection and financial support, accordingly, prayed for granting just and fair compensation.

7. The owners of the lorry and Motor Cab i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, remained ex parte before the Tribunal and the insurance companies of the respective vehicles have contested the case and participated in the adjudication process.

8. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2 and respondent No.5 herein was the respondent No.4, before the Tribunal, who are the insurers of the above lorry and motor cab respectively and filed their counters before the Tribunal denying all the allegations in the claim petition, as regards to the accident to the deceased, his age, avocation, health condition, earning capacity and involvement of the crime vehicles. It is further contended that insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was driving is a necessary party to the claim petition and in the absence of the same, the claim petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance companies.

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

i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of one Motor Cab bearing No.AP-28-

TV-0289 causing death of B.Raja Shekharan ?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitl