THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, by the appellant/petitioner No.2 against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (FTC), Rangareddy District, L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.P.No.707 of 2001, dated 14.03.2006, wherein claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Sd.Jahangir, filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of M.V.Act, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest for the loss of life of the deceased, who died in Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 05.04.2001.

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 appellants/petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Sd.Jahangir, who is the son of the petitioners. Subsequently, the section of law was altered to Section 163-A of the M.V.Act alleging that on 05.04.2001 their son Sd.Jahangir, aged 14 years, who was doing vegetables business was going on Scooter from Kismathpur to Budvel Village and when he reached near the house of Kirana Laxmaiah, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 9W 1815 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which, he fell down and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the RTC bus.

4. The contention of the petitioners was that the deceased Sd.Jahangir was aged about 14 years and he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month by doing vegetable business and he used to contribute the same to his family, but due to his untimely death, the petitioners lost their son and they were put to severe loss and hardship. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the accidental death of their deceased son under various heads.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition was filed against respondent No.1 (APSRTC) and subsequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded. Respondent No.3 remained ex-parte. 6. The respondent No.1-Corporation in their counter denied the material allegations in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same and contended that the bus in question belongs to one Y.Ram Reddy, which they were running on hire basis and therefore, respondent No.2 is liable for third party claim as per the agreement between them and further contended that they are not aware of the criminal case and that the claim against them is not maintainable and they are not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition against the Corporation. The respondent No.2, who is the owner of the bus (crime vehicle) bearing No.AP-9W-1815 denied the material allegations in the petition and contended that though he is the owner of the said bus, the said bus was hired by the RTC vide agreement valid from 07.07.2000 till 06.07.2003 and on the date of accident, the bus was in the custody of respondent No.1 as per the agreement and it was intact and insured with respondent No.3 Insurance Company, which was valid from 03.07.2000 to 02.07.2001 and the accident occurred on 05.04.2001 during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues, which reads as under:

1. Whether the accident that took place on 05.04.2001 at about 11:45 a.m. in front of house of Kirana Laxmaiah in Budvel Village, was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus (on hire) bearing No.AP 9 W 1815?

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

3. To what