JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.06.2008 in M.V.O.P. No. 608 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the tribunal”) the respondent No. 6-New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam, filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 3485 of 2008. In contrast, the claimants have filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 3971 of 2012. Both appeals are disposed of by common Judgment because they arise from the orders made in M.V.O.P. No. 608 of 2005.

2. For convenience’s sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of the death of Ravva Ramarao (hereinafter refer to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.12.2004.

4. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the husband of the first Claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 4.

5. The Claimant’s case is that on 03.12.2004, the deceased went to the outskirts of Nellimarla village near Railway Bridge with his cousin to answer their calls of nature at about 07.30 PM. At that time, the 1st respondent drove the tractor-trailer bearing No. A.P. 30 UT/R 0999, AAS 0225 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) from Ramatheertham’s side in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing the horn and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The Police of Nellimarla registered a case in Cr. No. 100 of 2004 under section 304A of I.P.C. against the 1st respondent.

6. Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex-parte.

7. The 3rd respondent-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, filed counter and denied most of the petition averments, including the manner of the accident, age and income of the deceased and contended that a false case was foisted against the 1st respondent by the police due to pressure of the local political leaders. The claim is highly excessive. The claimants are put to strict proof that the offending vehicle was insured with their company and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident.

8. The 6th respondent, New India Assurance Company Limited, filed a counter and denied most of the petition averments and contended that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, even as per the allegations of the petition the trailer bearing No. AAS 0225 was not involved in any accident nor attached to the tractor at the time of the accident. The claimants are put to strict proof that the 5th respondent insured the offending vehicle with their company and that the policy was in force on the accident date. The claim is excessive.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and marked Ex. X1 through PW-4. On behalf of the third respondent, RW.1 got examined and marked Ex.B1. On behalf of the 6th respondent, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

10. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, i.e. the first respondent; awarded compensation of Rs. 6,07,300/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents No. 3 and 6, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for parties.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No. 6-Insurance company in M.A.C.M.A. No. 3485 of 2008 contends that there is no rash and negligent driving as far as the trailer; the Tribunal failed to see that the owner and insurer of the trailer are not liable for any compensation; the Tribunal erred in passing the award jointly and severally