S.FATHIMA Vs. SHAIK MOHAMMED GHOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and order, dated 13.10.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.460 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Court for Trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal.

(2.) As per the averments of the claim petition, on 01.04.2013, one Shaik Basha (who will be hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), while returning to the house on his bicycle at 8-15 p.m., when he reached the Welding shop, near YSR Statue Road, a Mini Lorry bearing No.A.P.21-X-1431 (which will be hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") proceeding from Betamcherla to Nandikotkur with high speed, came from opposite direction and hit the bicycle of the deceased and the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and died instantaneously. At the time of accident, the deceased was 20 years old, working as a mason and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioners are the parents and sister of the deceased, who are the dependants. A case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.38 of 2013. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurance company of the offending vehicle, both are liable to pay compensation.

(3.) The 1st respondent was set exparte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition and admitting the issuance of insurance policy which covered the risk of the deceased, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The 2nd respondent contended that the petitioners have to prove the accident occurred in the manner stated by them that the offending vehicle involved in the accident, the age and income of the deceased and the manner of accident. The 2nd respondent further contended that the petitioners have to prove that the driver of the vehicle had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle had valid permit and fitness and that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The 2nd respondent further submits that the deceased himself fell down from the bicycle and died, but a false case is foisted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is high and excessive. Therefore, the 2nd respondent prays for dismissal of the petition with costs.