JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.05.2008 in M.V.O.P. No.594 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur; the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation represented by its General Manager, Hyderabad-the 1st respondent preferred this appeal questioning the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

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

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140, 141, 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of Karlapati Venkata Guruvulu @ Guravaiah, who is the husband of 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of 4th claimant, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.03.2004. Hereinafter, the said Karlapati Venkata Guruvulu @ Guravaiah will be referred to as 'the deceased.

4. The claimant's case is that on 24.03.2004, the deceased boarded a commander jeep bearing No.AP 7 W 3370 at Veldurthy, to proceed to Macherla at 6.45 AM and when the said jeep, after crossing the Mandadi, reached 4 K.M. at bodu turning, R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P. 9 Z 7832 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle), which was proceeding to Kothapalli Reddygudem, came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn and hit the Commander jeep due to which the deceased died on the spot.

5. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that the driver of the offending vehicle followed the rules and is not responsible for the alleged accident; the jeep was loaded with 20 passengers, and the jeep driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and due to overloading of the jeep, one of the persons kept leg outside the jeep. The offending vehicle-RTC bus dashed the jeep; thereby, the deceased herein fell from the jeep and died; the said incident was caused due to the hitting of the bus by the jeep.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter almost in similar lines to the counter filed by the 1st respondent and contended that the petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties to the proceedings and the driver of the jeep did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 got examined on behalf of the respondents. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that there was no negligence on the part of the jeep driver and the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle-RTC bus, the 1st respondent being the owner is liable to pay the compensation and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the 1st respondent, while dismissing the claim against respondents 2 and 3.

8. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle-RTC bus driver. The Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the jeep is also responsible for the accident and failed to observe that there was a collision between the two vehicles coming in the opposite direction and failed to observe that as there were more than 10 passengers in the jeep, the driver lost control over the jeep this accident occurred. He further contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

11. Now the point for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle’s driver and whether the jeep driver also contributed to the accident.

12. A