KANCHAM NALLAPPA Vs. B.SUDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants, having been aggrieved by the order of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated 16.09.2010, in O.P.No.377 of 2008, awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/ - against tractor owner, as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/ - with joint liability of owner and insurer for enhancement of compensation and for joint liability on insurer also, as prayed for, in the claim petition filed under Sections 140 and 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) THE parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. Initially, the claim petition was filed by K. Nallappa, when he was alive, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ - along with interest against the respondents for the injuries received by him in the motor vehicle accident, which took place on 17.07.2005. Claimants 1 and 2 are the wife and mother of the deceased. On 17.07.2005 at 5.00 P.M., when the deceased was standing by road side near Penna River of Tarimala Village Fields of Singanamala Mandal, the Tractor -cum -Trailer bearing Nos.AP02 -U -7474 and 7472, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries over his body; immediately he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur, and from there to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and again to the Heart and Brain Center, Kurnool, for treatment; the police of Singanamala Police Station registered the accident as a case in Cr.No.54 of 2007 against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C.; the deceased could not gain his normal health, though he spend more than Rs.1,00,000/ - towards medical expenses and other expenses and ultimately he sustained permanent disability resulting loss of his earnings of Rs.3,000/ - per month, as he is an agriculturist and coolie.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent also filed its counter alleging that the accident in question took place not due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver; its liability in indemnifying the 1st respondent would be subject to the terms and conditions of the policy only if at all such policy was in existence by the date of accident; the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a passenger; such offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, though it was insured for agricultural purpose by the date of accident and the quantum of compensation claimed by the deceased is excessive.