The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claims of compensation without the need to prove rash and negligent driving.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2010 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Angalakuduru Kanthachari, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of 2nd petitioner and son of 3rd petitioner, in a road accident that took place on 17.02.2010.

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

On 17.02.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16TU 1881 parked it on the road near Vittamrajupalli village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, in negligent manner without keeping parking lights. When the deceased and three others were travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 07 AG 5763 and the person, who was riding the motor cycle, did not observe the stationed lorry and hit the same from behind, as there were no parking lights or any other signs indicating parking of the said lorry. As a result of which, all the four persons received severe injuries. One of them succumbed to injuries at the spot and another died in the Hospital at Vinukonda. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 20.02.2010 while undergoing treatment. A case in crime No.54 of 2010 was registered by Vinukonda P.S. against the driver of the lorry for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the lorry, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, hence, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent.

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

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to use of lorry bearing No.AP 16TU 1881? If so, Angalakuduru Kanthachari received injuries and died due to the injuries caused in the said accident?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

(3) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased arose out of the use of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition awarding an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal.

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

10. The appellant/Insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- without any reliable evidence and the Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. which is exorbitant.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

12. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act whereunder the petitioners need not prove the rash and negligent drivin