JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.09.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 579 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short, "the tribunal"), the second respondent, New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa, preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the M.V.O.P.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.04.2008.

4. The claimant's case is that on 22.04.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., as a compounder-cum-attender, he was accompanied by a patient, namely Giri, in the ambulance bearing No. A.P. 05 V 6632 to take him to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati, from Seelam Nursing Home. After joining the said patient at S.V.R.R. Hospital, he was travelling back in the same ambulance. At about 3.00 a.m. on 23.04.2008, the said ambulance reached Korlakunta village on the Tirupati-Kadapa main road, and the said ambulance driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a stationed lorry on its backside. Due to that, the claimant sustained severe injuries all over his body. He was taken to S.V.R.R. hospital, Tirupati. The said ambulance will be referred to as “the offending vehicle”.

5. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement claiming that the accident occurred due to the lorry's negligent parking on the road. Since the second respondent insures the offending vehicle, any compensation payable by him shall be payable by the second respondent.

6. The second respondent, the offending vehicle's insurer, filed a written statement claiming the claimant was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle at his own risk. And that the policy issued by the second respondent did not cover the liability to compensate unauthorized passengers like the claimant.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.13 and Ex.X.1. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 got examined and marked Ex.B.1.

8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, further held that the claimant received injuries in a motor vehicle accident, awarded compensation at Rs.5,80,039/- with interest at 6% per annum and costs from the date of petition till realization.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent contended that the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition but instead allowed it. It is also claimed that the alleged accident was caused by the offending vehicle's driver's negligence. However, the claim petition is filed against the offending vehicle's owner and insurer. Furthermore, the injured was an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle, and the policy does not cover such an unauthorized passenger (Ex.B.1). As a result, there is no justification for assessing disability at 65%. The Tribunal erred in determining permanent disability at 20%, and finally, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Considering the material evidence on record and the upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel, the following points arise for consideration are,

I. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver?

II. Whether the Tribunal is justified i