The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the sufficiency of proving the involvement of the vehicle in the accident for compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioner and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.321 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 petitioner filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 17.02.2010.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and a fracture to head and three others succumbed to injuries. 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. 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 the motor vehicle bearing No.AP 16TU 1881? If so, Chintalapudi Ramakrishna Chari received injuries in the said accident?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

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

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 and X.1 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 in part awarding an amount of Rs.27,000/- 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 failed to see that the petitioner did not examine any witness to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle 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 driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In order to establish the accident, the petitioner got examined his father as P.W.1 and the doctor, who treated him, as P.W