NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P SARASWATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE National Insurance company aggrieved by and dissatisfied with an order dated 9/9/2002 passed in m. A. T. O. P. No. 47 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I additional District Judge at Khammam, is the appellant before me.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is widow, respondent No. 2 is daughter and respondent no. 6 is mother of Appala Swamy. The said Appala Swamy and some others were engaged by P. Easwar Rao-Sth respondent herein, owner of the lorry bearing No. AP16-T-180, for loading and unloading of cement poles. On 27. 11. 1998 Appala Swamy and co-labourers loaded cement poles on the lorry bearing No. AP16-T-180 and sat on the load. The lorry driven by one B. Srinu4th respondent herein was proceeding from paloncha to Bhadrachalam and on nearing ntr Colony, Bhadrachalam and while negotiating a curve, the driver lost control over the vehicle on account of his rash and negligent driving and as a result the lorry turned turtle and Appala Swamy and other co-labourers came under cement poles. Appala Swamy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) suffered serious injuries for which he succumbed at the spot of the accident. The Station House Officer, bhadrachalam (Rural) Police, registered a case in Crime No. 57 of 1998 under section 304-A and 337 I. P. C against the driver of the lorry. Due to sudden death of the deceased, his dependents viz. , his wife, daughter and mother were deprived of his earnings. Hence, the wife and the daughter filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Since the mother of the deceased did not join them, she was shown in the array of respondents in the claim petition. More precisely R-l was driver, R2 was the owner and R3 was the insurer of the Crime Vehicle and whereas r-4 was the mother of the deceased in o. P. No. 47 of 1999. The driver and the owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte. The insurer of the vehicle and the mother of the deceased filed counters.

(3.) INSURANCE Company disputed the income of the deceased and also rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. It also disputed the driver holding valid driving licence, and lorry holding road permits and its roadworthiness as on the date of the accident.