KULLAYAMMA ANR Vs. P VENKATESWARULU 5 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two appellants, who are wife and minor daughter of the deceased, had preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation amount.

(2.) The appellants earlier in view of the death of the deceased in a road accident had filed a claim petition; vide O.P.No.264 of 2006, in the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). The appellant No.1-wife and appellant No.2-minor daughter had filed original petition after the death of P.Nabi Rasool, who died in a road accident.

(3.) It was the case of the claimants that on 08.02.2006, P.Nabi Rasool was transporting flower bags and moving with others in a jeep bearing Registration No.AP-21V-9609. When the jeep was proceeding near Peddagutta turning, a lorry bearing Registration No.AP-21-Y-0888, which was coming from Gooty side from opposite direction dashed the jeep. It is the case of the claimants that the driver of the lorry was driving rashly and negligently and in the said accident, Nabi Rasool (husband of the appellant No.1) and two others died on the spot and other occupants sustained grievous and multiple injuries. Since it was the case of rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle, that is, the lorry by its driver, a case, vide Crime No.21 of 2006 was registered in Gooty Police Station against the driver of the lorry. Before the Tribunal, the claimants claimed that the deceased used to purchase flowers from different places and selling them at Gooty and Vajrakarur and from the said business, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In the claim petition before the Tribunal, besides the insurer of the lorry, namely, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the jeep and parents of the deceased were also arrayed as respondents. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased, at the time of death, was aged about 25 years. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2, that is, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited filed separate counter, denied and disputed that the deceased was aged about 25 years and doing business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Respondent No.2 also submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver in which the deceased was traveling and contended that the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the accident. The insurer of the jeep, that is, National Insurance Company Limited, also filed its counter before the Tribunal and took a stand that the police had registered a case against the driver of the lorry for rash and negligent driving. During the investigation the allegation was found true and as such the police submitted charge sheet against only the driver of the lorry. It was also disputed that it was not the case of contributory negligence rather it was out and out case of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, which has also been corroborated by filing of the charge sheet by the police against the lorry driver. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings on record, framed the following three issues: