Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J. - (1.) This appeal is arising out of the Order and Decree dated 22.02.2013, passed in O.P.No.735 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, granting compensation of Rs. 4,34,000/- to the appellants-claimants, on account of the death of the deceased P. Sathish Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.05.2011.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 03.05.2011, while the deceased was proceeding on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP-23M-3139 towards Cheryala side, and when he reached Ismail khanpet village outskirts near Balaji Pipe Company, a tractor bearing number AP- 9BS-8641 and trailer bearing number AP-23W-8055, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Ganeshgadda side and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries leading to his instantaneous death. The P.S, Sanga Reddy, registered a case against the driver of the offending tractor-trailer in Crime No.120 of 2011 for the offence under Section 304A IPC. The appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed claim petition O.P.No.735 of 2011 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending tractor-trailer, on account of the death of the deceased. The 3rd respondent-P. Rajeswar, is said to be the father of the deceased, but their relationship does not find place in the pleadings of the appellants. The respondents 1 and 3 have remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company has filed its counter, denying the allegations in the petition, and put the appellants to strict proof of the age and income of the deceased. They denied the accident and also the factum of instantaneous death of the deceased in the accident. The insurance company has also denied the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the tractor-trailer. It is also contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with them and that if any policy is traced out, the appellants have to prove that the offending vehicle had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the drivers of both the collided vehicles are not having subsisting driving licenses at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the rider and owner of motorcycle as necessary parties. It is further contended that as per insurance policy, the date, time, place of accident, particulars of deceased, name of the driver and particulars of his driving license have to be furnished by the owner of the vehicle, but the same was not furnished in this case. It is contended that as per Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is a statutory obligation on the concerned police officials to forward to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction, the information about the death or bodily injury to any person, and about the compliance with the statutory demand. It is further contended that the claim of the appellants is highly excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the petition.
(3.) The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings, framed three issues. The first being the proof of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the tractor-trailer, the second being the entitlement of the appellants for the compensation against respondents 1 and 2 and, the third is with regard to the relief claimed by the parties in the petition. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, and considering the documents Ex.P1-C.C of FIR, Ex.P2-C.C of charge sheet, Ex.P3-C.C. of inquest report, Ex.P4-C.C of PME report, Ex.P5-C.C of PME report, Ex.P6-driving license of deceased, and Ex.B1-insurance policy, has partly allowed the original petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 4,34,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum against respondents 1 and 2.;