The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof required to establish negligence in motor vehicle accident cases and the responsibility of drivers and owners in road accidents.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Kotha Rama Mohan, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 of 2012. Also heard Smt. D.Anusha, learned counsel representing Sri Chilukuri Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A. No.2718 of 2012 through virtual mode. None appeared for the respondents.

2. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2580 and 2718 of 2012 are directed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Order and Decree dated 14.05.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009, respectively, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (hereinafter referred to “Tribunal”).

3. Since the point involved and to be appreciated and adjudicated in both appeals is one and the same, they are disposed of by this Common Judgment.

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

5. Both claim petitions arose on account of a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.05.2008. The sum and substance of claim petitions filed by the respective claimants in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 is on 19.05.2008 one Kuruva Veeresh and Chakali Hanumanthu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased persons”) along with some other people were going to attend the work at Stone Crushing Unit belonged to one Balaram; around 1.30 PM when they reached the stone crusher point situate at Adoni-Yemmiganur road, a lorry bearing registration No.AP16 U 9827 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1 in high speed from Adoni towards Kurnool and could not control the vehicle while turning and it turned turtle, consequently the offending vehicle fell on the pedestrians; the deceased persons who were among those pedestrians, succumbed to injuries and the other pedestrians sustained injuries; the deceased persons during their life time worked as Hamali and earned not less than Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle filed counter contending that the pedestrians including the deceased persons all of a sudden made an attempt to cross the road and as a result, the deceased persons fell under the body of the offending vehicle; the “accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased persons but not due to the negligence of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the offending vehicle involved in the accident is only goods carrying vehicle, but the deceased persons travelled as unauthorized passengers; the offending vehicle was not having conveyance certificate and permit at the time of accident.

8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2009:

1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Chakali Hanumanthu had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No.1 on his lorry bearing No.AP16U 9827?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what the petitioners are entitled to?

In M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009, the following issues are framed by the learned Tribunal:

1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Kuruva Veeresh had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No.1 on his lorry bearing No.AP16U 9827?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what the petitioners are entitled to?

9. During enquiry, the respective wives of deceased persons were examined as P.W.1 in both claim petitions besides exhibiting five (05) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. In respect of respondents, the Senior As