THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.1499 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 14.03.2006, passed in O.P.No.90 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 14.10.2003 at 11.00 PM, when the deceased Raj Mohammad was a pedestrian on the Bidar-Humnabad road to go to his relative’s house, a lorry bearing No.KA-39/605, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on 15.10.2003 at about 4.30 AM while undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Bidar. The Police, Janwada, registered a case in Cr.No.129 of 2003 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the said lorry. At the time of the accident, the deceased, who was aged about 26 years, was working as Manager in Transport Company with a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants being the wife, children and parents of the deceased filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said motor vehicle accident. 3. The sixth respondent-owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant-insurance company filed separate counters denying the averments made in the petition; that due to his fault, the deceased died in the accident and that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,08,000/-towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first respondent-wife, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and in total, awarded an amount of Rs.4,38,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the lorry bearing No.KA-39/605 was not involved in the accident, for which, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants stated that PW4, who is the eye witness to the said accident, identified the said lorry as crime vehicle. 8. There is no dispute as to the manner in which the accident took place and the negligence of the driver of the lorry, who caused the accident, in which the death of the deceased was occurred. The dispute is only with regard to the involvement of the lorry bearing No.KA-39/605 in the accident. P.W.4, who is an eye witness to the accident, stated that on the date of accident, at about 11.00 PM when he was returning to his village Kolar-B on his motorcycle and reached between Kolar-B and Kolar-K villages, a lorry bearing No.KA-39/605 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed one pedestrian from his behind, due to which, he fell down and the lorry fled away. He gave the lorry registration number having noted in his diary. Further, the Tribunal observed that Ex.B2-investigation report reveals involvement of lorry bearing No.KA-39/605 in the said crime. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the lorry bearing No.KA-39-605 was not involved in the accident cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the quantum of compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and also the liability of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2010 sj