The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.191 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

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 claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Garapati Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 26.10.2007.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows :

The deceased was working as driver on the buses belongs to Gagana Tours and Travels, Hyderabad. On 24.10.2007 in the evening at 6.00 p.m. he attended duty on a bus bearing No. AP 9X 3355 and started at Bhimavaram to go to Hyderabad along with cleaner Chuttugalla Durgarao and reached Hyderabad on 25.10.2007 in the morning. Again on the same day i.e., 25.10.2007 the deceased started at Hyderabad as a driver in the said bus to go to Amalapuram and the bus reached Vijayawada at about 6.00 a.m. on 26.10.2007 and started at Vijayawada at 6.05 a.m. and when reached near petrol bunk weigh bridge o NH-5 road in Gannavaram of Krishna District at about 6.30 a.m., by that time a lorry bearing No.AP 07TU 3489 being driven by the first respondent going ahead and the first respondent drove the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner without taking precaution and without giving any signal came from left side to right side in a negligent manner. The deceased though applied brakes but could not stop the vehicle as all of a sudden the first respondent brought the offending lorry from the left side to right side and dashed against the bus, resulting which the deceased and cleaner of the bus received grievous injuries and the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

5. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and further pleaded that the claim of the petitioners is excessive. The fifth respondent filed counter with a plea that the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus i.e., the deceased herein and the fifth respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

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

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van i.e., AP 07TU 3489 by its driver i.e., 1st respondent?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. None were examined on behalf of respondents, however Ex.B1 was marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was not occurred due to negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2. PW2 is the cleaner of the bus, who travelled along with the driver of the bus i.e., deceased in this case. The material on record reveals that PW2 lodged a complaint before the police and on the said complaint the Station House Officer, Gannavaram