HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for appellant-

insurance company.No representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Adilabad(for short, ‘Tribunal’)in M.V.O.P.No.434of 2018, dated 12.08.2024,thereby seeking to set aside the award against the insurance company.

3. The appellant herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company, respondent no.1 herein is the claim petitioner and respondent no.2 herein is the owner of the Auto-crime vehicle. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the presentappealis as under.

4.1 On 29.05.2017, at about 1.00 p.m., while the deceased along with his mother were travelling on motorcycle bearing No.AP-25- AN-9580 from Aurad towards PeddaGulla village, an auto bearing No.TS-16-UA-3315, driven in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction with high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased due to which the deceased and his mother fell down from the motor cycle and the deceased sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries all over the body.

4.2. The claimants, i.e., parents and brother of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the respondents 1 to 3 under Section 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicle Act 1989, before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4.3 It is contended that deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 35 years and doing agriculture, milk and vegetable business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family and due to sudden death, petitioners have lost their future hope love and affection of the deceased.

5. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of crime vehicle remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the contents of the petition with regard to narration of accident, age, avocation, income of the deceased and further contending that driver of Auto-crime vehicle was not having valid driving licenses to drive the vehicles and that both the said vehicles were not roadworthy to ply as on the date of accident; that deceased himself is responsible for the accident who was triple riding on said motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and as such, the insured and insurer of the motor cycle are necessary parties to the case proceedings and therefore, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether the accident occurred on due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rikshaw bearing No. TS-

16-UA-3315 by its driver?

ii) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and from which respondent?

iii) To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Doctor was examined as P.W.2. and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked through him. The respondent No.2 got examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. The RTA Official was examined as RW.2 and Ex.4 was marked through him.

9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.2,80,822/- directing the respondents 1 and 2 with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed

10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant-insura