UPPALA NAGAMMA Vs. Y.GOVINDARAJAN BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the order, dtd. 23/7/2007, in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act') by the claimants to a tune of Rs.3,00,000.00 for the death of Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who is husband of the first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 8/4/2005, awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000.00 towards compensation.

(2.) The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner is the wife and second and third petitioners are the major sons of the deceased. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000.00 p.m. as on the date of accident. Petitioners are dependants on the earnings of the deceased. On 8/4/2005 at about 06:00 pm. deceased was engaged as coolie in the Tractor bearing registration No.AP 16 AK 901 with Trailer No.972 (for short, 'the offending vehicle') of the first respondent for weighing and un-loading paddy along with some other coolies. After un-loading the paddy, while the offending vehicle was returning from Marrivada village, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, it turned turtle. Immediately after the accident, all the injured in the offending vehicle were shifted to Family Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. Later, the deceased was shifted to American Hospital, Gudivada, for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries on 12/4/2005 at about 01:45 PM and a case in Crime No.38 of 2005 was registered. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. First respondent is the owner and second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which was validly insured at the time of accident. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.