The main legal point established is the court's affirmation of the Tribunal's findings on rash and negligent driving, compensation, and liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty. 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who is son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and elder brother of 3rd petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.08.2011.

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

On 09.08.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased and his colleagues went for selling the product of Power Excel Powder at Singanamala village and after completing their work at about 7.45 p.m. they were returning in an auto to Anantapur and when they reached near SRIT Engineering College on anantapur-Tadipatri road, one APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 04W 8999 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from Anantapur side and dashed against the auto resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The S.H.O., B.K.Samudram P.S. registered a case in crime No.126 of 2011 against the driver of the bus under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC and after a detailed investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The offending bus of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent and hired with the 3rd respondent/APSRTC. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are owner and insurer of the auto respectively. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 were set ex parte. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

6. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the driver of the offending bus had no valid driving licence, therefore, their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/APSRTC that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto; there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus; the driver of the bus had no valid driving licence; the 1st respondent hired the bus with them and the bus was insured with the 2nd respondent, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

8. It is pleaded by the 5th respondent that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus of the 1st respondent which was insured with the 2nd respondent and hired with the 3rd respondent and there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred on 09.08.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 04W 8999 by its driver and caused the death of the deceased?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation” If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

10. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked.

11. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the 1st respondent and accordingly, allowed the petition granting an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at