The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in determining compensation claims for motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. Challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 584/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-XIII Addl.District Judge, Vijayawada, the appellant/Insurance Company Limited, filed the appeal.

2. The respondents/claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Pasumarthi Sreeramulu, alleging that the deceased used to work as coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month; on 03.02.2010 at about 05.30 p.m. when the deceased Sreeramulu was proceeding in auto No. AP 20W 6706 and on the way when the said auto reached near Vedadri village, another auto No. AP 16 TY 2952 driven by 1st respondent came in opposite direction and hit the auto, in which the deceased was proceeding; and thereby the said auto turned turtle and in the said accident, deceased sustained injuries and died at spot; therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition for compensation.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, age and avocation of the deceased, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of auto in which the deceased travelled had no driving licence and not having necessary skill to drive the auto and therefore, the accident occurred; and that the 1st respondent is also not having valid driving licence and badge number and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation.

4. The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte.

5. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased P. Sreeramulu died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.02.2010 at about 17.40 p.m. near Vedadri village due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/owner of auto bearing No. AP 16 TY 2952?

2. What is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and what amount?

4. To what relief?

6. To substantiate their claim, the claimants examined P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked.

7. The claimants filed claim petition U/s.163-A of M.V.Act stating that the deceased is earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As per section 163-A of M.V.Act, the annual income of deceased shall not exceed Rs.40,000/-. But in the present case, the annual income of deceased would be Rs.72,000/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal held that the claim petition U/s.163-A of M.V.Act is not maintainable, and hence, considered the claim petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act.

8. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-5, held on issue No. 1 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent, and further held on issues No. 2 and 3 that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7. 5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the accident happened due to negligence of auto in which the deceased was travelling, hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation; The learned Tribunal ought not have taken income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- in the absence of any evidence; and the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 7.5% p.a.

10. The contention of the claimants is that the learned Tribunal basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded just compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum as per law, and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

11. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration