The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of insurers in cases of negligent driving and the apportionment of compensation in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in M.V.O.P.No.568 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet. 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 application.

3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Kurrapothula Eswaramma in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.07.2007.

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

On 26.07.2007 the deceased along with others was proceeding on an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 04V 9232 to go to Rly.Kodur and when the auto reached near Mathamma temple near Mangampet on Kodur-Rajampet road, the driver of the auto tried to overtake a tipper going ahead of it. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.HR 64A 1207 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the auto. Resultantly, some of the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and some of the injured including the deceased died on the spot. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the lorry. The 3rd respondent is owner-cum-driver and the 4th respondent is insurer of the auto. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter affidavit by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the auto and hence, the owner and insurer of the auto are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

7. The 4th respondent/Insurance company also filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is contended that the driver of the auto allowed about more passengers i.e., about 20 passengers, than the seating capacity to travel in the auto and thereby, the owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the driver of the auto did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; and that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of lorry. Therefore, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

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

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 or the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232?

(2) Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 and the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 had valid and effective driving licences to drive the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 and auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 at the time of accident?

(3) Whether the lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 was insured with the 2nd respondent? Whether the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04V 9232 is insured with the 4th respondent? And whether the policies were in force at the time of accident?

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

(5) To what relief?

9. 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 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked.

10. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and, accordingly, granted an am