MALA VEERAPURAM BABU Vs. Y.KRISHUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR .JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -Additional District Judge, Anantapur (in short Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.202 of 1997 dated 22.08.2003, awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/ - (Rupees sixty thousand only) for not fixing the liability against both the respondents (owner and insurer) as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988( in short the Act), but for against the owner by exonerating the insurer, the claimants, who are parents of the deceased boy aged about 10 years as per page 3 para -7 of the award from post -mortem report and claim petition averments, also filed this appeal.

(2.) HEARD Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited and perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(3.) THE claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.60,000/ - consequent on death of said deceased Yesaiah, aged about 10 years who is among 15 to 20 persons travelling in the lorry sitting on the kadapa slabs load among them, 5 persons in all met with death leave about other injured therein in the motor accident. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of said deceased. The deceased is said to have gone as one of the coolies in the lorry for loading and unloading slabs on the date of incident and due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver, he received injuries and died as per the evidence for the first time which is running contra to the claim petition averments that the deceased and others were proceeding to Tadipatri in the lorry and when reached Sajjaladinne about 12 noon, the accident occurred on 29 - 08 -1996 in saying they were travelling as passengers. The first respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent -insurance company filed a counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle by disputing liability of the insurance company to the claim.