LAWS(APH)-2007-4-115

ANASUYAMMA Vs. B NARSINGA RAO

Decided On April 30, 2007
ANASUYAMMA Appellant
V/S
B.NARSINGA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the order dated 1.2.2001 in O.P. No.574 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar District, wherein the claim for compensation was allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the petition. As the two appeals arise out of the same impugned order and are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 in C.M.A. No.3096 of 2005, who are claimants, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of one Balusu Rajesh, son of the first claimant, in a motor accident that occurred on 23.1.1995. According to the claimants, on that day while the deceased and his uncle Eswaraiah were returning from Jadcherla in a lorry bearing No.AP-28-T- 1114 to reach Hyderabad along with 50 kgs rice bag, four folding chairs, one trunk box and one folding table etc., paying a fare of Rs. 145/- the lorry turned turtle near a bridge in between Lingareddigudem and Chandrayan Gudem due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, as a result of which, the lorry fell in a road side ditch resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. The police, Shadnagar registered a case in Crime No.19 of 1995. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was working as a private servant in Vishweshwara Rice Mill at Kothapeta, Rangareddy District and drawing Rs. 1,500/- per month.

(3.) The 1st respondent in C.M.A. No.3096 of 2005, who is the owner of the lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. The appellant herein, who is the insurer (2nd respondent before the Tribunal) filed a counter denying the liability to pay the compensation and further contending that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and so the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.