THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A No.261 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 02.05.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.346 of 2016 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard Smt.P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-

claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of her son namely Narsimha Reddy (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident, which took place on 15.01.2016 in the night at 00:00 hours at Jakaram Village, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal District. On the date of accident, the deceased was riding a Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing No.AP-36-AF-3787, accompanied by one Paidimalla Shravan as a pillion rider and while they were returning to Mulugu Mandal after completion of their work at Hanamkonda and when they reached at Jakaram Village, at that time, the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6111 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and stopped the lorry on the main road without putting indicators or signals. Due to darkness, the deceased dashed the lorry, as a result of which, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down on the road, sustained injuries and they both died on the spot. Basing on the complaint lodged by brother of the deceased, a case in Crime No.5 of 2016 was registered by Mulugu Police. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry under Section 304-A of I.P.C. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years, doing agriculture work and used to earn an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare of the family. Due to the accident, respondent No.1-claimant sustained loss of dependency, love and affection of the deceased. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. Therefore, she filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondents in the said O.P.

4. The appellant-insurance company contested case before the Tribunal by filing counter-affidavit and denied the allegations made in the claim petition including age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is stated that respondent No.1- claimant has to prove that the deceased was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle at the time of accident otherwise, the appellant-insurancecompany is not liable to pay any compensation to respondent No.1-claimant. It is stated that there is gross negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the vehicle without observing the traffic rules, for which the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The appellant-insurance company also denied that respondent No.1-claimant is the only legal heir to claim compensation for the death of the deceased and she was depending on the deceased at the time of accident; that the compensation claimed by respondent No.1-claimant is highly excessive and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are owner and driver of the lorry remained ex parte before the trial Court.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the accident occurred on 15.01.2016 at about 00.00 hours at Jakaram Village?

(ii) Whether BillaNarsimha Reddy sustained injuries in the accident and died of the injuries?

(iii) Whether the accident was due to stopping of Lorry No.AP-15-X-

6111 by respondent No.1 on the main road without putting indicators and signals?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(v) To what relief?”

7. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record both oral and documentary evidence,