THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.117 and 367 of 2020

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.367 of 2020 filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.117 of 2020 filed by the Insurance Company, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 04.10.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.253 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners filed the above claim-petition for grant of compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of one M.Srinivas Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.08.2015. It is stated that on 12.08.2015, while the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler to go to Thorrur and when he reached the outskirts of the village near Ammapuram Vaagu, one Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP 01 AE 0817, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries to his head, legs and hands and immediately he was shifted to Maxcare Hospital, Hanamkonda and from there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment, where he died on 17.08.2015 while undergoing treatment.

4. Basing on a complaint, the Police, Thorrur, registered a case against the driver of the Car, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

5. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per month by doing agriculture and on account of the death of deceased, the petitioners being the wife and sons, who are depending on the income of the deceased, have lost their source of income. Hence, they filed the claim-petition against the respondents, who, being the owner and insurer of the Car are liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent No.1-driver of the Car remained ex parte.

7. Respondent No.2-insured filed counter contending that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and if any compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance company alone is liable to pay the compensation.

8. Respondent No.3-insurer of the Car filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition such as the manner in which the accident took place, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is specifically denied that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and excessive. It is further contended that the driver of the Car was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if any, awarded. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

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

1. Whether the death of Muddam Srinivas Reddy was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Swift Car bearing No.AP 01 AE 0817 by its rider, namely, Yerra Kiran Kumar (R1)?

2. Whether the respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence, as on the date of accident?

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

4. To what relief?

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked with consent.

11. After considering the contents of the claim-peti