- (1.) Respondents 1 to 5 who are the legal representatives of Iqbal Khan (the deceased) filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs.4,24,500/-from the 6th respondent and the appellant, who are the owner and insurer respectively of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 2-7442 alleging that the deceased, who was a doctor, at the instance of the 6th respondent, went to give medical treatment to one of the relatives of the 6th respondent on the motor cycle belonging to the 6th respondent, and met with an accident resulting in his death. Sixth respondent chose to remain exparte before the Tribunal. Appeal against him was dismissed for default in payment of process.
(2.) In support of the their case, respondents 1 to 5 examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-5. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal held that respondents are entitled to Rs.1,79,600/- as compensation from the sixth respondent and appellant and passed an award accordingly. Questioning its liability to pay the compensation to respondents 1 to 5 and also the quantum of compensation awarded to them, the insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased was proceeding at the time of his death, preferred this appeal.
(3.) Sri Kota Subbarao, Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions, (i) The Tribunal was in error in awarding huge compensation when the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and in any event the compensation awarded needs reduction, (ii) Since the deceased was not having a valid driving license, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation, (iii) Since the driver of the motor cycle is not covered by the policy of insurance, in any event, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, (iv) Interest awarded is too high.;