VENDIKATLA VEERAKKA Vs. C. V. RAMANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') is filed by the appellants/claimants impugning the award dtd. 6/6/2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in MVOP.No.146 of 2006.

(2.) Heard arguments of Sri KMR Bala Prasad, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri K.Rama Mohan Rao, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/ insurance company.

(3.) Sri V.Hassan Sab was aged 28 years and was a coolie earning Rs.3,000.00 per month. On 21/3/2006 at about 5 PM, along with his brother, he was walking on the left side of the road in village at which time a mini lorry bearing registration No.KA 04 A 1184 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently which came from behind the pedestrians and dashed Sri V.Hassan Sab leading to his spot death. His brother PW.2, having witnessed the incident, lodged written information which was registered as Cr.No.41 of 2006 at Mydukur Urban Police Station as evidenced by Ex.A1/ FIR. After due investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the driver of the offending lorry as evidenced by Ex.A3/ charge sheet. The dead body was subjected to inquest/ Ex.A4 and autopsy as per Ex.A2. The offending vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who gave a report stating that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the vehicle as evidenced by Ex.A5. It was in such circumstances, praying for compensation of Rs.3,00,000.00 under Sec. 166 of the MV act, the mother and sister of the deceased filed MVOP.No.146 of 2006. It was pleaded that the wife of the deceased left him, two years ago and whereabouts were not known, and she was stated to be living with another person. Therefore, she was not made a party to MVOP.No.146 of 2006. The owner of the offending vehicle was R1. At the material point of time, the vehicle was stated to have been validly insured by National Insurance Company Limited and therefore, it was made as R2. Before the tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and specifically contended that the claim was not maintainable, since the wife of the deceased was not made a party.