The preponderance of probabilities standard and the application of the notional theory to determine compensation in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated 11.12.2019 in M.V.OP.No.132 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor (“Tribunal” for short), by the unsuccessful third respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.132 of 2018, who filed the claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of their son in the motor vehicle accident, in which the Auto bearing Registration No.A.P.03-TE-7934 (“offending vehicle” for short) involved and the first respondent was the driver and the second respondent was the owner.

4. The case of the claimants, in brief, as set out before the learned Tribunal, is that the claimants are the parents of one V.J. Vighnesh (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”). The first respondent was the driver of offending vehicle. The second respondent was the owner of the said offending vehicle. The third respondent was the insurer of the second respondent vehicle. The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 20 years as on the date of accident. He was studying B. Tech III year in Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology, RVS Nagar, Tirupati Road, Chittoor. On 08.05.2017 at about 1-30 a.m., on Chittoor-Puttur Road, the son of the claimants was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CG-1103 towards Puttur side. By then the offending vehicle driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle due to which, the deceased fell down on the left side of the road and received head injury and died. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. Basing on the report given by the second claimant, a case in Crime No.41 of 2017 was registered. The deceased was the only son of the claimants and due to sudden demise of him, they lost their only son who would look after them had he been alive. Hence, the petition.

5. The second respondent got filed written statement which was adopted by the first respondent. The contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 according to the written statement of the second respondent is that there is no negligence on the part of the first respondent driver of the vehicle. The deceased himself suddenly crossed the road in a drunken condition without observing the vehicle belonging to the second respondent. The traffic police falsely registered the case against the first respondent in Crime No.41 of 2017 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(A) and (B) and Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act to help the claimants. The second respondent insured the offending auto with the third respondent vide Policy No.417053/31/18/000037. It was in force as on the date of accident. The validity of the policy was from 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and the third respondent alone is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The third respondent/insurance company before the learned Tribunal filed a written statement contenting in substance that the third respondent is not aware that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the driver i.e., first respondent and thereby the second respondent is vicariously liable. The driver of the offending vehicle, who allegedly caused the accident, had no driving license to drive the offending vehicle and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license. The second respondent willfully and knowingly allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person, who had no valid driving license as on the date of accident, as such, there was a contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He