The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of liability of the respondents based on the evidence of rash and negligent driving and the insurance policies.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in M.V.O.P.No.1349 of 2004, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners and directed respondent Nos.2 & 3 to pay 50% of the compensation amount and also directed respondent Nos.4 & 5 to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount, this instant appeal is preferred by the 5th respondent/Insurance company.

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 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Bonu Atchutha Rao, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.12.2003.

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

On 20.12.2003 the deceased and his wife were proceeding from Kotha Road to Dockyard in an auto bearing registration No.AP 31U 5951 and when the auto reached near Ayyappa Swamy Temple Junction, the auto, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing anything, dashed a lorry bearing registration No.AP 16TU 0490 on its front left side, resultantly, the deceased and his wife sustained grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 30.12.2003 while undergoing treatment. The driver of the lorry was also driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed at the time of accident. The S.H.O., Gajuwaka Traffic P.S. registered a case in crime No.136 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC against the driver of the auto. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the Auto. The 4th respondent is owner and the 5th respondent is insurer of the lorry. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 were set ex parte.

6. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the police did not take necessary steps for inspection of the lorry, therefore, the 2nd respondent prays to dismiss the petition.

It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent that the accident took place not due to the fault of the driver of the auto, but due to the fault of the lorry driver, the auto was not insured with the 3rd respondent, the driver of the auto was not holding valid driving licence, though the lorry was involved in the accident, the police did not arrest the driver of the lorry or sent any requisition to the concerned to inspect it, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

It is pleaded by the 5th respondent that the police registered a case against the driver of the auto, hence, the petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed against the 5th respondent.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and whether it resulted in death to the victim?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount?

3) Which of the respondents are liable to pay compensation?

4) To what relief?

8. 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.7 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the m