The court applied Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows for compensation without the need to prove rash and negligent driving, and upheld the principle that the best evidence should be presented to rebut claims.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claimants and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 1397 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Nuthangi Srinivasa Rao, who is husband of 1st claimant, father of 2nd claimant and son of claimant Nos.3 and 4, in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 09.06.2007.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the claimants are as follows:

On 09.06.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 7S 7312 on Amaravathi road, Guntur, along with his wife as a pillion rider, and when they reached near Ala Hospital, Guntur, a Mini City Bus of the 1st respondent bearing registration No. AP 7X 9981 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from behind them and hit the motor cycle. Consequently, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The S.H.O. Arundalpet (L&O) P.S. Guntur registered a case against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending bus. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and the driver of the bus was not at fault.

7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini City Bus bearing No. AP 7X 9981 by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to and against whom?

(3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent’s bus driver alone and accordingly, granted a sum of Rs.13,15,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both parties and perused the record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.7,500/- p.m. and the Tribunal also failed to apply the correct multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased.

12. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

13. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the Act whereunder the petitioner need not prove the rash and negligent driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In order to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, the claimants examined P.W.1. P.W.1 is wife of the deceased and an eye witness to the accide