THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.678 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) against the judgment and decree, dated 05.12.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman (M.A.C.T.) II Additional District Judge (FTC), Mancherial (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the mother and sister of one Duta Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), have filed a claim-petition for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.12.2016. It is stated that on 22.12.2016 at about 9:30 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle of his friend by name Gaddala Prashanth as pillion rider from Mittapalli to Rasoolpalli and when they reached Rasoolpalli bus stop, a lorry bearing No.AP 20 TB 2526 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and died while he was taken to hospital.

4. Basing on a complaint, the Police, Jaipur registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2016 against the driver of the Lorry i.e. respondent No.1, for the offence punishable under Section 304-

A of I.P.C.

5. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by doing part time job and on account of the death of the deceased, the claimants, who have depended on the income of the deceased, have lost their source of income. Hence, they filed the claim-petition against the respondents, who being the driver, owner and insurer of the Lorry are liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

7. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition such as the manner in which the accident took place, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is specifically stated that the petitioners have to prove that the driver of the Lorry ie. Respondent No.1 is having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is specifically stated that the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

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

1. Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioners on 22.12.2016 at 9:30 hours at Rasoolpalli bus stop, resulting in the death of deceased Duta Arun Kumar on accident of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 20 TB 2526 belonging to second respondent or whether there was any negligence on the part of the deceased?

2. Whether there was any insurance coverage for the tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 20 TB 2526 and if so, does the policy cover the risk of deceased and if so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by the respondent?

3. What were the age, avocation and the earnings of deceased?

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.MH 26 AA

3017?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what extent and against whom?

6. To what relief?

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 17 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

10. After considering the contents of the claim-petition, counter filed by respondent No.3 and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioners, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and allowed the M.V.O.P in part and granted compensation of Rs.6,36,600/- together with costs and int