The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a motor vehicle accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the calculation of compensation based on the deceased's income and dependents.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is 3rd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 in M.V.O.P. No. 1330 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. The claim petitioners filed cross objections for enhancement of the compensation.

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 claim petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Veerni Veera Venkata Satya Appalaswamy, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of 2nd petitioner and son of petitioner Nos.3 & 4, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.06.2009.

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

On 17.06.2009 the deceased was proceeding to Madugula on a motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 9P 2808 and when he reached Peda Maduvu, Gajapathi Nagaram near Chodavaram at about 11.30 a.m., a bus bearing registration No. AP 31Y 7899 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries and died on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner, the 3rd respondent is insurer and the 4th respondent is hirer of the offending bus. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

6. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased.

It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

It is pleaded by the 4th respondent/APSRTC that the driver of the offending bus was not employed by the 4th respondent and thereby, there is no master and servant relationship between the driver of the offending bus and the 4th respondent. It is also pleaded that the bus was taken on hire for a limited period under a hire agreement and as per the terms of the hire agreement, the owner of the bus is completely responsible for any claim in case of any accident involved by the hired bus and the 3rd respondent being insurer of the offending bus is liable for payment of the compensation.

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

(1) Whether Veerni Veera Venkata Satya Appalaswamy died in a motor accident that occurred on 17.06.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of RTC hired bus bearing No. AP 31Y 7899 by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and, accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting an amount of Rs.15,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Questioning the legal validity of the said order, the a