THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

15.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1077 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI 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 was that on 25.12.2013 the deceased-S. Poornachander Chary was going along with his friends in a Car bearing No.AP-25-L-0003 from Thurkapally Village towards Uppal, and when his car reached near Maruthi Rama Industry, Bhongir Town Sivar, at the same time, the driver of one DCM Vehicle bearing No.AP-12-V-5190 has driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, lost control over the said van and came in a wrong side and dashed the car in the opposite direction. As a result, three persons died on the spot, while the deceased and another person sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Bhongir and from there he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B Nagar and the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle, filed counter denying the material averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. His contention is that, if at all any compensation has to be paid, it is only respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation, since his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying all the material allegations with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the particulars of Insurance Policy mentioned in the petition are not correct and that the driver was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Therefore, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether in the pleaded accident, the deceased-S.

Purnachander Chary died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP-12-V-5190?

2. Whether the petitioner is/are entitled to compensation. If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no witness was examined, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.21,01,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, MACMA.No.276 of 2021 is preferred by the Insurance Company, while MACMA.No.264 of 2021 is preferred by the claimants.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that there was contributory negligence of the driver of the other vehicle in which the deceased was travelling and that the Tribunal has failed to take the same into consideration. He further argued that the income of the deceased is also assessed to be very high by the Tribunal. He further argued that the title deed of PW5 is not filed and the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 cannot be taken into consideration to assess the income of the deceased. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation and to fix the liability on both the vehicles, since the accident occurred in the opposite direction, due to head on collusion.

11. The counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A6 and A7 showing that the deceased used to work as Site Supervisor in a Construction Company and also that the deceased used to do Real Estate Business in