The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation for a motor vehicle accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is the third respondent/Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No. 872 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and it filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Saripalli Yesobu @ Ramaiah, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 22.08.2004.

4. The facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

The petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased and the petitioners 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. On 22.08.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased Saripalli Yesobu @ Ramaiah and other coolies boarded the crime auto to go to Rajavaram for coolie work, when they reached near Babji White Clay Quarry, the first respondent/ driver of auto bearing No. AP 37V 4930, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and without following traffic rules, resulting which the auto turned turtle, due to which the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and died on the way to hospital.

5. The second respondent remained ex-parte.

The first and third respondents filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the first and third respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased Saripalli Yesobu @ Ramaiah, died in a motor vehicle accident on 22.08.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 37V 4930 driven by the first respondent?

2. What is the age and income of the deceased?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

7. 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 respondents R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in-part and awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the Appellant/ Insurance Company filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?

11. POINT:

In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW1, and so also PW2 and Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. As per his evidence, himself, the deceased and four others were travelling in the truck auto as loading and unloading workers and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and he sustained injuries in the said accident and the deceased died on the spot itself. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record and on considering the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A1, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased Saripalli Yesobu @ Ramaiah died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 22.08.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto truck bearing No. AP 37V 4930 i.e., f