JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.07.2010 in MVOP.No.529 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – District Judge, Vizianagaram, (for short ‘the Tribunal’, the appellants who arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in MVOP.No.529 of 2007 filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the award.

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.529 of 2007.

3. The claimant's case is that on 08.11.2006, one Gudivada Ramu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), after completing his work at Modavalasa, boarded an Auto to go to Vizianagaram. When the said Auto reached Shivajipalem at about 03.25 PM, an A.P.S.R.T.C. D.G.T. Bus bearing No. A.A.Z./511 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending bus’) came from the opposite direction, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and even without blowing any horn or following the traffic rules dashed the said Auto. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. A case was registered in Crime Number 194 of 2006 for the offence under Section 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. by Traffic P.S., Vizianagaram, against the offending bus driver, i.e., 1st respondent.

4. The 1st respondent, the driver of the offending bus, remained exparte.

5. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter, denying all the petition particulars and contending that the alleged offending bus driver was not at fault. The driver revealed that on 18.11.2006, he went with the D.G.T. goods vehicle to purchase the material for the canteen from the local market and proceeded towards the Zonal Work Shop. When he reached Pradeep Nagar, he observed that an Auto bearing No.AP31-X-7084 coming at high speed without following the rules and overtaking another auto, suddenly came to the right side at high speed. The 1st respondent observed the same, then swerved the bus to the right side of the road, intending to avoid an accident, but the Auto driver could not control the speed of the Auto and directly came and hit the front bumper portion of the offending bus. The entire rashness and negligence are on the part of the Auto driver but not on the part of the offending bus driver. The Auto driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The seating capacity of the Auto is 4 members, including the driver, but contra to that, there were more than 8 passengers in the Auto. At the time of the accident, two passengers in the Auto sat on both sides of the Auto driver, which caused difficulty to the driver in driving the Auto on a heavy traffic road. The petition is bad for the non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the Auto. The compensation claimed is excessive.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the relevant issues. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X.2. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 got examined, and no documents were marked.

7. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver and granted compensation of Rs.7,68,000/- with interest at 6% per annum against the respondents 2 and 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondent and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to see that the entire rash and negligent was on the part of the Auto driver but not on the part of the offending bus driver; the driver of the Auto who caused the accident was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of the accident; the owner and insurer of the Auto are necessary parties to the claim petition; the Tribunal erred in fixing the compensation excessively; the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not correct one.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and