The main legal point established is the liability of the owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident, and the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI J.

Heard Sri Kiran Kumar Baligamsetti, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited; Smt. M.Sarada, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.8/ respondent No.4/New India Assurance Company Limited.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/National Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.854 of 2010 passed by the Chairman-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 09.04.2010 around 4.30 PM, one Baji (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and others were returning from Jonnalagadda Darga in a lorry bearing registration No.AP16 U 6690 and when they reached Pondugala after one kilometre, another lorry bearing registration No.AP07 W 9369 came in opposite direction also in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry in which the deceased boarded; as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot; in that accident along with the deceased, another person also died and some of the inmates of the lorry also sustained injuries; a case in Crime No.66 of 2010 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); the deceased was aged about 26 years, hale and healthy earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month by doing mike setting and agricultural coolie works.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 3/owners of the two lorries bearing registration Nos.AP7 W 9369 and AP16 U 6690, respectively remains exparte. The respondent No.2/ National Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of the respondent No.1’s lorry filed counter contending that the accident was occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP16 U 6690; the respondent No.3 violated the terms of the policy and allowed his driver to transport the passengers in a goods vehicle; as per the MVI Report there was no damage to the respondent No.1’s vehicle, whereas the respondent No.3’s vehicle was badly damaged, which shows that the driver of the respondent No.3’s vehicle lost control over the vehicle and dashed against something but not the respondent No.1’s vehicle; there was no collision in between the two lorries; the driver of the respondent No.1’s vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle; the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive.

6. Respondent No.4/New India Assurance Company Limited filed counter contending that there was no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent No.3’s vehicle; the Report (charge sheet) also shows that the case was filed against driver of the respondent No.1’s vehicle; the deceased and others were travelling as passengers in goods carriage at the time of accident, which is prohibited as per permit, hence, the respondent No.4/New India Assurance Company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.3; the driver of the respondent No.3’s vehicle is not having valid and effective driving license and the said vehicle was not insured with the respondent No.4’s company; the compensation and interest claimed by the claimants is excessive.

7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP07 W 9369 and lorry bearing registration No.AP16 U 6690?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During enquiry, the 1st claimant, wife of th