The main legal point established in the judgment is that a driver holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement, making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants/claimants are before this Court seeking intervention in the impugned judgment and award dated 21.03.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.106 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole, (for short “the Tribunal”) awarding compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- in their favour against the Respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and dismissing the claim against the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Heard Sri D.Bujji Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the insurance company.

4. The brief facts of the case are that Claimant No.1 is the father and Claimant No.2 is the mother of the deceased-Inaganti Chinnammai @ Chinna. It is contended by the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 18 years and was working as a coolie and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. On the fateful day i.e., on 13.02.2010 at 9.00 a.m., while the deceased was returning with a milk packet from the milk centre to her house at Paathamagulur Village, on the way at about 9.30 a.m., the 1st respondent as the driver of the auto bearing No. AP- 07/TV-7112 (hereinafter referred to as “the Crime Vehicle”) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased on her back, as a result, she sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

(ii) The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the Crime Vehicle and based on the complaint lodged by P.Venkateswarlu, V.R.O of Santhamaguluru Village, a case in Crime No.15 of 2010 of Santhamaguluru Police Station was registered against the 1st respondent (driver) for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

(iii) The deceased was unmarried and was aged about 14 years at the time of the accident. The parents of the deceased i.e., 1st and 2nd claimants filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal on account of her death in the said road traffic accident.

(iv) The 1st & 2nd respondents did not contest the matter.

(v) The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying the age, income of the deceased and mode of the accident and contended inter alia that the 1st respondent, who was the driver of the crime vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive the same and that the offending vehicle was having effective permit and valid insurance policy and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. It is further averred that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and they are not entitled to claim the interest @ 12% per annum and pray to dismiss the petition.

(vi) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the death of the deceased Inaganti Chinnammai @ Chinna D/o.Prakasa Rao, S.C.Colony, Pathamagulur village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal is occurred on 13.2.2010 at 9.30 a.m. near Pathamagulur on Vinukonda- Narasaraopet road due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP-07/TV-7112 by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? and If so, to what amount and against whom?

(3) To what relief?

(vii) In order to establish the claim of the petitioners, at the time of enquiry, the 1st petitioner/1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and marked as many as six documents i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.6 on their behalf. One G.Chandra Sekhar, who was the Junior Legal Executive of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1 and marked as many as four documents i.e., Exs.B.1 to B.4 on behalf of the 3rd respondent before the Tribuna