BHEEMA Vs. MD ASLAAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.02.2013 passed in O.P.No.79 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short, the Tribunal).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the wife, parents and daughters of the deceased-Chowhan Shekar. On 17.09.2009, the deceased was going on his TVS Excel bearing No.AP 15 AN 0526 from Jagtial to his village Pudur and at 7.00 p.m. on that day when he reached the bus stage of Chelgal, a lorry bearing No.AP-15-HA 0412 was parked on the road without any precautionary measures indicating the stationary position of the lorry and the deceased owing to focus of the lights of the vehicles coming in opposite direction could not notice the parked lorry and consequently his motor cycle dashed against the rear portion of the lorry and he fell down and sustained serious head injury and went into coma. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital in 108 ambulance van and as per the advice of the doctors at the hospital, he was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital at Karimnagar and at 9.30 p.m. on that day, he succumbed to the injuries. By the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and since he was Sisa Kammari by caste, he was making iron boxes and agricultural implements etc., and thereby he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The accident occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of the lorry, since he had parked it at the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures. Hence, the appellants filed the present claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Respondents 1 to 4 being the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry are therefore jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. They alleged that the accident occurred on account of negligent riding of the motor cycle of the deceased himself and so, the owner of the TVS motor cycle is also necessary party to the petition and stated that his liability, if any, may be restricted to the extent of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that they are not liable to pay the compensation unless there is proof that on the date of the accident, the driver of the lorry had valid driving licence and that there was valid insurance for the lorry.