JUDGMENT :

V. Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.08.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’)

2. The appellant is the insurer of car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337 belonging to the 6th respondent herein. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are parents of the deceased by name Maram Kiran Kumar Reddy, respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein are the owner, driver and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948.

3. According to the claimants, on 13.02.2011 at about 03.30 p.m. near Naravari Rahadari turning on a road running from Chittoor to Kurnool, N.H.18 in between Piler and Kallur of Pulicherla Mandal, when the deceased along with his friends was proceeding in verna car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948 came in opposite direction with sugarcane load at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said car. As a result of which, spark ignited in the engine of car, which caught hold fire on the spot and the inmates of the car also died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years and working as Marketing Manager at Rajiv Country Club, Hyderabad and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Being dependents, the claimants filed petition under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against drivers, insurer and insured of both the vehicles.

4. Counter was filed by the insurer of lorry denying all the material allegations stating that the policy issued to the lorry was in force at the time of accident and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation.

5. Counter was filed by the insurer of car stating that the driver of car was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues :

1. Whether the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.02.2011 at 3.30 p.m. due to negligence of drivers of both vehicles i.e., car and lorry or not?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? and

3. To what result?

7. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of insurers of lorry and car, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car, held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,86,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, against the estate in the hands of respondent No.4 therein and insurer of car jointly and severally and the claim against driver, owner and insurer of lorry is dismissed.

9. It is against the said judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the insurer of car.

10. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurer of car, Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for insurer of lorry and Sri D. Kodanda Ramireddy, learned counsel for the claimants.

11. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in making the appellant alone to pay the compensation when the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident.

12. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurer of lorry submits that there was no negligence on the part of driver of lorry and that the accident was