The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering factors such as rash and negligent driving, entitlement of claimants, and liability of insurers.

JUDGMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

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 a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Shaik Bude Saheb in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 13.09.2006.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The deceased, at the time of his death, was working as Sub Post Master at 77 Tallur village and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- and the deceased was hale and healthy and he used to spend his earnings to the welfare of his family consisting of petitioners. The deceased along with his colleagues went to Delhi to attend a National Conference of their Union as delegates. On 12.09.2006, the deceased along with his colleagues planned to see Tajmahal at Agra and engaged a Maruthi van bearing No.DL9CB 8761 and when they reached near Chata village on 13.09.2006 at about 2.00 a.m., the driver of the Maruthi van slowed the vehicle without giving any signal, meanwhile UPRTC bus bearing No.UP81N 9895 came in opposite direction and dashed the Maruthi van, as a result, the deceased received multiple injuries, later succumbed to injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The second respondent remained exparte. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the respondents 1, 3 and 4 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No.UP81N 9895 and Maruti van No.DL9CB 8761 and that resulted in death of the deceased Shaik Bude Saheb?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.4,29,932/- to the claimants towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicles, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2, who is the direct witness to the accident. As per the evidence of PW2, himself along with the deceased and others planned to visit Tajmahal at Agra and they engaged a Maruthi Van and when reached Chata village, the van was slowed down by its driver, in the meanwhile UPRTC bus bearing No.UP 81N 9895 came in opposite to the van and hit the van, as a result, the deceased and other two persons died. During the course of cross-examination, he admits that there are five persons travelling in the Maruthi Van at the time of accident other than the driver.

12. The first respondent examined RW1/S.Virpal Singh, who is the driver of UPRTC bus. As per his evidence, he took over the bus at about 5.30 a.m. and afte