The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows for compensation without the need to prove rash and negligent driving, and the liability of the insurance company based on policy violations.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 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 petition.

3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of A.Venkata Narasaiah, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 07.11.2007.

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

On 07.11.2007 the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing registration No. AP 03W 7513 from K.V.B.Puram to Srikalahasti and when the auto reached near Sivanadhapuram of Thottambedu Mandal at about 4.00 p.m., a tractor-trailer bearing registration No.AP 03C 7594 & 7595 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in opposite direction and dashed the auto, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the Area Hospital, Srikalahasti. A case was registered against the driver of the offending tractor-trailer. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending tractor, therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Both the respondents filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the accident arose due to negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tractor and the driver of the offending tractor had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the 2nd respondent is 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 deceased A.Venkata Narasaiah, husband of first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners, died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 7.11.2007 at about 4 p.m. near Sivanadhapuram village of Thottambedu Mandal on Srikalahasti-Pitchatur main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor cum trailer bearing regn. No.AP 03C 7594/7595 belonging to the first respondent, insured with second respondent?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting an amount of Rs.5,03,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to deposit the amount in the first instance and later recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner. 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 pleaded that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- without any evidence and also failed to see that the driver of the offending tractor did not possess valid and