JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 06.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 91/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 16,08,939/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

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

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.07.2011.

4. The facts would show that on 07.17.2011 the petitioner being an advocate, after completion of court work at Ongole, started to go to attend court work at Addanki, and when he reached near Hero Honda Showroom at 01.30 p.m. on NH-5 road, at that time, the driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, and immediately he was shifted to Venkata Ramana Hospital, Ongole, and after giving first aid, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur and he underwent several operations for fracture injuries, and spent huge amount, and on the report, the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station registered a case against the driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 as case in Cr. No. 198/2011 U/s. 337 of Indian Penal Code. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/owner of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 filed written statement, denying the material averments of the petition, and submitted that the 1st respondent/driver never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner, and caused the accident.

6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the 1st respondent/driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, and that he was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.

7. The 4th respondent/possessor of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 filed counter by denying the averments of the petition, and contended that the 1st respondent/driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The 5th respondent filed a memo, adopting the counter filed by the 4th respondent.

8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 by its driver/1st respondent?

2. Whether the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to pay compensation, as they took the crime vehicle on lease from the 2nd respondent or 2nd respondent being owner of the vehicle is only liable to pay compensation?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

9. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, RWs. 3 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-2 to B-4 and Exs.X-3 to X-6 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent, respondent