K. SUGUNA Vs. VELADRI PULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants who are claimants/petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.115 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Court below dtd. 30/5/2017 by which the petition filed by the appellants/petitioners herein was dismissed by the lower Court.

(2.) The said petition was filed by the petitioners claiming an amount of Rs.6,00,000.00 for the death of one Esthari (who herein after will be referred as deceased). The first appellant herein is the wife and other appellants are children of the deceased. According to the averments made in the above referred petition, it was the case of the appellants/petitioners that on 25/11/2012, the deceased went to Koppole village to attend the marriage of their relatives and returned home in the evening hours and at about 5.30 p.m., when he reached Gurrampude Village, the deceased fell down from Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle, as a result, he received severe injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Hospital at Nalgonda. Later, he was shifted to Titan Hospital, Hyderabad, where he died while undergoing treatment on 29/11/2012. The appellants have claimed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. The bike belongs to the first respondent herein. A complaint was lodged with the police Gurrampude and a case was registered under Sec. 304-A of IPC. The appellants have filed the petition against the owner of the motorbike and insurance company, from which a policy was obtained against the said bike. The first respondent/respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The insurance company i.e. the present appellant contested the petition. They filed a counter denying the material averments of the petition including the policy issued against the vehicle, involvement of the bike in the accident and pleaded that the bike was falsely implicated in the case only for the purpose of insurance claim. Based on the above contentions, the trial Court framed the following four issues:

(3.) The wife of the deceased has been examined as PW.1 and she has marked Exs.A1 to A9. The contesting respondent examined RW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. The trial Court did not accept the claim of the appellants herein and dismissed the petition vide order dtd. 31/5/2017.