THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2016, dated 23.10.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of a minor boy, namely Kuncham Mahesh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in a road accident that occurred on 05.04.2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants who are the parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2016 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It is contended that on 05.04.2012, the deceased minor boy went to mango orchard of one Vakeel, situated at Kallur road, Korutla toplu mangoes and at about 15.00 hours, while he was returning home sitting on the engine of the Tractor/trailer bearing No.AP-15-AZ-1566/AP-15-AT-5428 and while the deceased was getting down from the tractor, respondent No.1 moved the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the minor boy fell down and the tractor front tyre ran over him and he sustained injuries to his vital organs. Immediately, after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Korutla and as his condition was serious he was shifted to Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, where he died on the same day at 23.30 hours while undergoing treatment. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor/trailer driven by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said tractor which was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company. The Police, Korutla registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No.1. On account of death of the deceased, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants was that as on the date of accident, the deceased, who was the only son of the petitioners, was aged about 10 years and was hale and healthy. Due to the said accident, the claimants lost their love and affection and suffered mental agony and further contented that if the deceased would have survived, he would have earned Rs.30,000/- per annum. As such, filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter- affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1 and the compensation which is claimed is excessive and exorbitant and that as on the date of accident, respondent No.1 was holding valid driving license and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and that respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioners did not implead all the legal heirs of the deceased to the petition and that the accident occurred due to sitting of the deceased on the tractor mudguard which is against MV Act and Rules and that respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license and the Police charged him under Section 181 of MV Act. The Police, driver and owner of the said vehicle did not inform the company about the accident and as such, respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the fol