The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to determine the cause of the accident and responsibility for the accident in a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Nagumantri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 28.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1038 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Eluru at West Godavari District (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 claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Bandlamudi Moshe (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.08.2010 at about 5.30 PM in the fields of one Nageswara Rao, Sirivada village of Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was driving a tractor bearing registration No.AP16 T 5973; while ploughing the land, the tractor turned turtle and fell on the deceased; as a result, the deceased died on the spot.

6. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the tractor; the deceased is not a third party to the accident and he himself was the insured and therefore, the legal representative(s) of the insured cannot be a claimant as well as the respondent and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

7. It was also contended that as per police record, there was rash and negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driver of the tractor at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that the accident occurred due to self-negligence of the deceased and in that view of the matter, the legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain the application as insured cannot be a claimant as well as respondent.

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

1. Whether the deceased-Bandlamudi Moshe died in a motor vehicle accident on 10.08.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No.AP16 TB 5974 driven and owned by the deceased?

2. What was the age and income of the deceased?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant i.e., wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and during her evidence, four (04) documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and one K.Rambabu was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of respondents i.e., respondent No.2/ Insurance Company, its Senior Executive viz., K.Raghu Babu was examined as R.W.1 and the Junior Assistant viz., K.Venkata Rao from RTA Office, Nuzvid was examined as R.W.2. Ex.B2 and Ex.B3; Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 documents were marked for the respondent No.2. Ex.B1, copy of Ration Card was marked for the claimants.

10. The learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the learned Tribunal, in the light of evidence referred above, ought to have answered issue No.1, whether the accident was occurred due to the self-negligence of the deceased; But the learned Tribunal did not answer the issue No.1; Simply closed the issue observing that the Inquest Report and Post-Mortem Certificate would establish the death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal without answering the issue No.1, decided issue Nos.2 and 3, assessed the compensation as if the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of a third party, and determined the compensation under Section 166 of the Act.

11. Considering the rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the Order and Decree pa