JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.96 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-V Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Ongole, the 3rd respondent-The National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Dharavarithota, Ongole, has filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. as claimants and respondents.

3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of their son Bopparaju Madhu Babu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.01.2011. The said Bopparaju Madhu Babu will hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased. The claimant's case is that on 11.01.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased and his cousin Sai Kumar were cycling from Jolly to Throvagunta and returning to Ongole, and when they reached Market Yard on the NH-5 road, a tractor and trailer bearing No. A.P. 27 AB 5671 and 5671 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle) with a load of sand coming from the backside, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell on the ground, was run over by the tractor, and died on the spot.

4. The first respondent is the driver, the second respondent is the owner, and the third respondent is the insurer of the tractor and trailer.

5. The first respondent filed his counter, contending that he had never been involved in an accident and never worked as a driver for the second respondent. He further contended that he had a valid driving licence and was an experienced driver.

6. The second respondent filed his counter, contending that he always used to engage the driver, who has a valid driving licence and never violated the conditions of the policy. The vehicle is insured by the third respondent, and so compensation has to be paid by the third respondent only.

7. The third respondent filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle; the driver had no valid and effective driving licence. The claimant's claim is excessive.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A., 1 to A.5 . On behalf of the respondents, examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

9. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No.1, and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

10. Heard Sri Paladugu Venkateswarlu, learned standing counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3, Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants, Sri G.Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3/respondent No.1 and Sri N.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4/ respondent No.2.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/ appellant contended that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence; the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He did not have a transport endorsement to drive the offending vehicle, which is a transport vehicle. The driver of the insured vehicle obtained a transport driving licence 3 months after the occurrence. The Tribunal failed to see that the deceased is a bachelor and should deduct 50% of the income towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, which is on the higher side.

12. Learned counsel for the claimants supported the finding