B. Seshasayana Reddy

1. This MACMA and the Cross-Objections arose out of the order dated 06.01.2005 passed in MVOP No.1270 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowed the petition filed under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, ‘the Act’) and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, in part and granted compensation of Rs.13,59,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition to the date of payment.

2.

a) Vasireddy Sujatharani is the claimant in MVOP No.1270 of 2000. Vasireddy Chandraiah @ Chandraiah Naidu is her father. Her father and mother were proceeding in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.AP 9B 1566 from Kavali to Guntur. Her father was driving the Maruti Car. On nearing Chagallu village, a lorry bearing No. TDI 7677 came in high speed from opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Maruti car. As a result, Maruti car got badly damaged, her father and mother received fatal injuries. Her father met with instantaneous death and whereas, her mother succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Kavali. Her father was a Reader and Head of Department of Commerce in Jawahar Bharathi Degree College, Kavali. He was earning Rs.24,200/- per month. He did P.Hd. in Commerce. A case in Crime No.76 of 2000 came to be registered against the driver of the lorry by the Station House Officer, Ulavapadu P.S. P.Yasoda Rani is the owner and the New India Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the offended lorry. The owner and the insurer are liable to pay the compensation claimed by her jointly and severally. As on the date of accident, she was pursuing MBBS course. According to her, had her father alive, there would have been hike in his salary because of the revision of pay scales. She claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the untimely death of her father in the road accident.

b) The owner of the offended lorry remained ex parte.

c) The insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the claimant. The insurer pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car by the deceased himself. The claimant did not implead the owner and insurer of the Maruti car and therefore, application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The insurer further pleaded that the quantum of amount clamed by the claimant is on high side. The liability of the insurer is governed by the provisions of the Act and terms and conditions of the policy.

d) The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. TDI 7677 ?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii) To what relief?

e) On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as PW.1 besides examining two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, and marked 6 documents as Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the insurer, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced.

f) The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TDI 7677 and that the claimant is entitled to Rs.13,54,300/- as compensation for the death of her father in road accident occurred on 15.10.2000 and that P.Yasoda Rani being the owner and the New India Insurance Company Limited being the insurer of the offended lorry are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Accordingly, allowed the O.P. in part, by order dated 06.01.2005.

3. The insurer filed MACMA No.794 of 2007 under Section 173 of the Act questioning the very grant of compensation and whereas, the claimant filed cross-objections under Or