THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 18.11.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1922 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 04.05.2014 at about 7:10 p.m., the deceased was going as a pillion rider on a motor bike bearing No.AP-10VE-T/R-5729 being driven by one Sudarshan and while proceeding from Keshavaram Village to Yellampet side, the rider of the motor bike has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the road side railing when they reached near Sangeeth Function Hall on the outskirts of Keshavaram Village, as a result of which the pillion rider fell down from the motor bike and sustained head injury and died on the spot.

The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the owner-cum-driver of the motor bike was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP-10VE-T/R- 5729 on 04.05.2014 causing death of K. Narsimha S/o K.

Venkataiah?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,17,300/- against the owner of the vehicle and has exonerated the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Insurance Company has contended before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license and that in the absence of any proof, pay and recovery may be ordered making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover from the owner, but the Tribunal has completely exonerated the Insurance Company and has fixed the liability only on the owner which is not justified. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh, 2004(1) SCC 1 and 2004 ACJ. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased as pleaded by them and that the deceased was a labourer and used to earn around Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month which is very low. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation and also to fix the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that, there were three persons going on the motor bike at the time of accident and that it was overloaded. He further argued that the deceased was a pillion rider and the driver of the motor bike did not have valid driving license. Thus, the owner-cum-driver of the motor bike has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that PW2 is examined to be an eye wit