Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The deceased Raminaidu was hale and healthy, working as Line Inspector in A.P Transco, he was earning Rs.12,572.50/- per month, due to sudden death of Raminaidu, petitioners lost dependency and became destitute. Hence, they claimed compensation under various heads.

5. First respondent filed counter, denying material allegations inter alia contending that the deceased Raminaidu was coming from Bobbili to go to Ramabhadrapuram and deceased Raminaidu drove the motor bike at high speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit electrical pole, when first respondent was about to overtake lorry, while going towards Parvatipuram, on observing the motor bike, suddenly applied brakes by first respondent and the jeep turned turtle, without touching motor bike. Thus, the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent, petition without adding owner and insurer of motor bike is not maintainable. First respondent also denied the age and monthly income of deceased Raminaidu, requested to dismiss the petition.

6. Second respondent filed counter independently, whereas, respondent Nos.3 and 4 adopted the counter filed by second respondent. Second respondent disputed rashness and negligence on the part of first respondent, while contending that first respondent was about to overtake a lorry, while proceeding towards 3 MSM, J Macma_2701_ 2006 Parvatipuram, on observing motor bike, applied sudden brakes, thereupon the jeep turned turtle, without touching the motor bike, petition without impleading the owner and insurer of motor bike is not maintainable, age of deceased Raminaidu and contribution to family etc., were also denied by respondent Nos.2 to 4, requested to dismiss the petition.