HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.2751 of 2007 Date: April 30, 2010 Between: The United Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/ Appellant And 1. A. Prakash and 5 others. ..Respondents/ Petitioners/Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.2751 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Heard the counsel. 2. The counsel for appellant had taken the stand that the policy does not pertain to the said company and on verification it is stated that the policy is available. 3. The counsel for the contesting respondents would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) cum XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as “Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience) this is a matter to be interfered with. 4. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A. (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal are to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled? 5. Point No.1: The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.1895 of 2003. 6. The petitioners-claimants filed the said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of deceased A. Raju @ Narsing Rao, who is the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and the elder brother of third petitioner, in a motor accident which occurred on 06.9.2002. 7. It is the case of the claimants that one day prior to the date of accident the deceased along with others engaged a vehicle bearing No. AP 11 W 2502 to go to Sholapur for purchasing a Ganesh idol from Secunderabad and when they reached the limits of Basavakalyan of Karnataka on 06.9.2002, at about 6-30 a.m. at N.H. No.9 one Tata Goods vehicle bearing No. MH 04 S 7423 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their vehicle, as a result, the deceased and one Ashok died on the spot and other occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries. 8. It is also averred that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Accountant in Goel Tube Corporation. He was aged 23 years and unmarried and he had been contributing the entire income to the petitioners. Because of sudden death, the petitioners who are dependents on his income are put to loss of future income and support. Hence, the claim for compensation. 9. R-1, R-3 and R-4 remained ex parte. 10. R-2, no doubt, filed counter and additional counter as such. The coverage by way of insurance policy of the vehicle had been specifically denied. 11. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are settled: (1) Whether the deceased A. Raju @ Narsing Raju, died in a motor accident that took place on 06.9.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Goods vehicle bearing No. MH 04 S 7423 and AP 11 W 2502? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 12. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 was recorded, Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.A-5 were marked. By oversight without marking Ex.A-4 it was marked as Ex.A-5. Hence, the same nomenclature as Ex.A-5 is continued. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of R-2. 13. The Tribunal appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and ultimately came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. R-1 and R-2 are jointly and severally liable for Rs.1,69,500/- and R-3 and R-4 are jointly and severally liable for Rs.1,69,500/- and the respondents are liable for the above amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and with proportionate costs. Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of judgment. The first petitioner was allotted Rs.89,000/-, the second petitioner was allotted Rs.1,50,000/- and the third petitioner was allotted Rs.1,00,000/- and certain further directions also had been given. 14. It is stated that the United India Insurance Company Ltd., alone had preferred the appeal. The other branch of United India Insurance Company Ltd., had not preferred appeal and it is needless to say that that portion of the award already had been attained finality. Even otherwise since it is stated the policy is available, no further questions need be gone into. 15. This Court also gone through the findings recorded by the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence available on record. Since the Tribunal recorded appropriate findings, this Court is not inclined to differ with the said findings and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. 16. Point No.2: In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: April 30, 2010. BSB