THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3548 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 14.12.2000 in O.P. No. 633 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nizamabad whereby and whereunder the second claimant was awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/-against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 22.4.1994 the deceased Nomula Rajanna was travelling in the lorry bearing No. ADT-3174 from Hassakothur village towards Nizamabad Gunj along with the goods. At about 9.00 a.m. when the lorry reached near Chinnapoor cross road, respondent No.3 who was driver of the lorry drove the said lorry with a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the lorry turned turtle, thereby the deceased sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died on the same day in Govt. hospital, Nizambad. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, he was aged 50 years and was earning Rs.36,000/- per year through agriculture, but for the accident the lives of the claimants became dark and gloomy. Claimant No.1 is the daughter of the deceased and Claimant No.2 is the wife of the deceased. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. The respondents 1 and 3 were set exparte. 4. The second respondent filed counter disputing the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. They denied that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADT-3174 and the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. They dispute that the claimants are the only legal heirs of the deceased. They stated that the vehicle in question was not insured with them at the time of accident. FIR indicates that the deceased was travelling contrary to the conditions of Insurance Policy and RTC Rules. As such, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further, the claim made by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. ADT 3174 by its driver only? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? iii. To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PW 1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 7. After taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.55,000/- to the second claimant- wife of the deceased i.e. Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Being not satisfied with the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned standing counsel for insurance company. 9. PW.1, wife of the deceased, deposed that on the date of accident, her husband boarded a lorry along with the maize in order to go to Nizambad gunj. When the lorry reached near Chepur, the lorry turned turtle, thereby her husband died on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 50 years. The deceased used to get net income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from the agriculture. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. They own twenty acres of agriculture land and they used to raise paddy, maize, turmeric and other commercial crops. After the death of the deceased, the lands are kept fallow. 10. In this case, no eye witness was examined by the claimants, but they lodged FIR before the S.H.O., P.S.Makloor immediately after the accident. FIR indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADT-3174. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the remand diary. Ex.A.3 is the Xerox copy of policy. Ex.A.4 is the land holding certificate. Ex.A.5 is the copy of the post-mortem report. RW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Insurance company deposed that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with their company. The policy covers the risk of third party including driver and cleaner. Ex.B.1 is the Xerox copy of the policy. As observed by the Tribunal, under the new Act, insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in any type of vehicle. Therefore, the second respondent- insurance company is liable to pay compensation to Claimant No.2. Since Claimant No.1 is married daughter, the Tribunal has rightly rejected her claim. 11. Though PW.1 stated that the age of the deceased was 50 years, a perusal of the Ex.A5 report reveals that the deceased was 60 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- under ‘no fault liability’ besides awarding Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. 12. However, it appears the Tribunal lost sight of awarding consortium and loss of estate to the second claimant. Therefore, the second claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court. Further, claimant No.2 is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus the total compensation awarded is Rs.70,000/- (Rs.55,000/- + Rs.10,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-). 14. With the above modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 01-07-2010 Stp