The main legal point established is that the driver of the tractor-trailer was held liable for the accident, and the Insurance companies were not liable to pay compensation due to the driver not having a valid and effective driving licence.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, in M.O.P.No.40 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos.3 to 5, this instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/respondent Nos.1 & 2.

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 the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of G. Srinivasa Rao, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, and son of 4th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.03.2008.

4. Facts germane to dispose of the present appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

On 22.03.2008 the deceased and another were proceeding from Visakhapatnam on a motor cycle bearing registration No.YBX AP 03F 3793 and when they reached near Suresh Residential School, Parvathipuram, at about 18.30 hours, a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 35T 7577/4324 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, was coming in opposite direction, and in the process of overtaking another tractor, the driver of the tractor-trailer came to extreme right side of the road margin and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased and another fell down, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. A case in crime No.19 of 2008 was registered by the S.H.O., Parvathipuram P.S., against the driver of the offending tractortrailer for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Evidently, after completion of investigation, the police found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer. So, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of the tractor. The 3rd respondent is owner of the trailer and the 5th respondent is insurer of the trailer. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent was adopted by respondent Nos.1 & 3.

i) It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

ii) Respondent Nos.4 & 5 pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and the accident took place due to own negligence of the deceased in driving the motor cycle, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1) Whether the accident was occurred resulting the death caused to the deceased Gorji Srinivasa Rao due to involvement of the vehicle Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 35T 7577 and AP 35T 4324 by its driver R-1?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion t