The legal principle established in the judgment is the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows for compensation without the need to prove rash and negligent driving, and the Court's discretion to modify the compensation amount and rate of interest.

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is 2nd respondent-Insurance company and the respondents are claimants and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional 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 petition.

3. The claimants filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of Vallabhapuram Samadhanam, who is husband of 1st claimant, father of claimant Nos.2 & 3 and son of 4th claimant, in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.08.2007.

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

On 19.08.2007 the deceased hired an auto bearing registration No.AP 07X 929 at Tenali and purchased fertilizers and pesticides and got loaded the same into the said auto for transportation to his village and started at Tenali and when the auto reached near Autonagar bridge, Tenali, a lorry came in opposite direction. Then, the driver of the auto became uncontrolled and applied sudden brakes. As a result of that, the auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Tenali Rural P.S. registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2007 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending auto. The 1st respondent being owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending auto are jointly and severally liable to pay the 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 driver of the auto was not having effective driving licence by the date of accident and the claim made by the claimants is excessive.

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

1) Whether the deceased V.Samadhanam is died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto No.AP 07X 929?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto and accordingly, allowed the claim petition granting a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against the respondents. 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 ought to have seen that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending auto, the amount awarded towards compensation is exorbitant, and the interest awarded @ 8% p.a. is excessive.

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 M.V. Act where under the claimants need not prove the rash and negligent driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. It is the case of the claimants that due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto, the auto turned turtle resulting