THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.2054 of 2015 by the order and decree dated 08.09.2020, the petitioners have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) from respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the death of the deceased viz., “J.Vijay Kumar”. Petitioner No.1 is the mother, petitioner No.2 is the father, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 29.07.2015 at about 1:00 am, when the deceased was proceeding on his motorbike from Kushaiguda to Nagaram Village and reached Sri Abhaya Anjaneya Swamy Temple Kaman, S.V.Nagar, the driver of tipper vehicle bearing No.A.P.29.T.8997 was negligently stationed in the middle of the road without switching on the parking lights, indicators or placing any precautionary signs or warning boards. The absence of such mandatory precautions rendered the vehicle unidentifiable in the darkness. Consequently, the deceased, while proceeding on the said road, failed to notice the stationed tipper, collided with it from the rear side; and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot.

4. Based on a complaint, the police, Kesara Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered First Information Report No.223 of 2015 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against driver of the crime vehicle i.e., tipper bearing No.A.P.29.T.8997 and after investigation filed charge sheet.

5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and was working as Sub-Staff, Central Recovery Cell, Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited, Secunderabad and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were majorly dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection and were left in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) against all the respondents jointly and severally.

6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, relationship of petitioners with the deceased, negligence, involvement of crime vehicle in the accident, rash and negligence of crime vehicle and called for strict proof of the same. It was contended that the driver of the said tipper was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and respondent No.1 got insurable interest in the vehicle and also he was not in possession of requisite documents, such as, RC, valid permit and fitness certificate; and seriously disputed the issuance of any insurance policy by the respondent company in favour of owner of the crime vehicle. It was further contended that the occurrence of accident was not reported by the insured or driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.3 shall be permitted to take all necessary defense as contemplated under Sections 170-B, 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues.

i) Whether the deceased J. Vijaya Kumar S/o J.

Devadhanam died on 29.07.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper bearing No.AP.29.T.8997?

ii) Whether the petitioners a