G JAYALAXMI Vs. SYED ANWAR HUSSAIN QUADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P. No. 41 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Kurnool, wherein and whereunder a claim for an amount of Rs. 11,00,000 as compensation for the death of Banda Naga Malleswara Rao was denied.

(2.) Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to them, on 31.1.1999 at about 7 p.m., the deceased was driving his motor cycle bearing No. AP 04-A 4736 and was proceeding from Yemmiganur to Ananthapur. His brother B. Mallikarjuna was the pillion rider. It is stated that a lorry bearing No. AP 02-T 6366, which was proceeding in front of their motor cycle, suddenly slowed down the speed by applying brakes. As a result, the motor cycle driven by the deceased dashed against the lorry from its back side. The deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. PW 2 who was the pillion rider also sustained grievous injuries. In connection with the said accident, a casc in Cr. No. 3 of 1999 was registered on the file of Pedda Vaduguru Police Station. The police after completion of investigation filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the lorry. Exh. A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. and Exh. A2 is the copy of the charge-sheet. It may be noted that the F.I.R. was registered against an unknown person as the lorry went away without stopping after the accident. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 32 years by the date of accident. He studied up to M. Com and was working in M.G. Brothers at Ananthapur, getting Rs. 4,000 per month as salary. Hence the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation to an extent of Rs.11,00,000 from the respondents.

(3.) The claim against the respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the offending vehicle was dismissed as no batta was paid and the respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the said vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No. 3 insurance company filed its written statement stating that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle but due to negligent driving of the deceased himself in dashing against the lorry from its back side. It is further stated that the lorry was not involved in the accident at all. The owner and insurer of the motor cycle are also necessary parties to the petition. It is further stated in the written statement that the respondent No. 2 colluded with the claimants and he intentionally did not report the matter of accident to the respondent No. 3. It is further stated that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.