The insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the deceased's family if the accident is caused by the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2010 in M.V.O.P. No.192 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal'),the National Insurance Company Limited rep., by its Divisional Manager, Tirupati, who is the 2nd Respondent in M.V.O.P. preferred this appeal questioning the Award passed by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on it.

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

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.9,74,000/- on account of the death of K. Balakrishnama Naidu @ Balakrishna (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.04.2007 at 11.15 AM on Renigunta-Tirupati main road at Patel Wood Works.

4. It is not in dispute that the 1st claimant is the wife, and the claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased.

5. The claimant's case is that on 23.04.2007 at about 11.15 AM, the lorry bearing No.AP 03-U-5612 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Bajaj Scooter bearing No.ATC 6262 from its behind, and then the offending vehicle hit the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP03 S 7830, in which the deceased was proceeding in the same direction, resulting in the deceased and two others who were travelling in Bajaj scooter being severely injured and all of them were shifted to the casualty of Sri Venkateswara Ramanarayan Ruia Government General Hospital, Tirupati and there the deceased and two others succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment.

6. The first Respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

7. The 2nd Respondent filed a counter, admitting the accident and denied the other averments and contended that, as per the version in the claim petition, three vehicles were involved in the accident. The claimants filed the case against the owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle and not impleaded the owner and insurer of the other two vehicles. The 2nd Respondent reliably learnt that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj Scooter's rider and the rider of the Honda motorcycle. Hence, the owner and insurance companies of both vehicles are liable to pay the compensation. In the event of awarding compensation, contributory negligence is on the part of the deceased also to be considered. The compensation claimed is excessive.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.4. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and got marked Ex.B.1 copy of the policy by consent.

9. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver and on account of which the deceased died and granted compensation of Rs.5,81,952/- with interest at 6 % p.a., against the respondents, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

10. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant /second Respondent contends that the Tribunal failed to see that the accident took place between three vehicles; the Tribunal failed to see that when the claim petition is filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act, only Rs.9,500/- can be awarded towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.33,000/-; the Tribunal failed to see that the offending vehicle is driven by its cleaner, who had no driving licence; the Tribunal failed to see that the offending vehicle's driver is cha