The need for preponderance of probabilities in reaching a conclusion and the requirement of cogent evidence to prove contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 31.01.2011 in MVOP.No.187 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Judge-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the 2nd respondent/the new India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, filed this appeal questioning the award passed by the tribunal granting compensation amount to the petitioner in MVOP.

2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in MVOP.No.187 of 2009.

3. The petitioner, the son of deceased filed petition under Sections 140, 166 of Motor Vehicles At read with rules 455 and 476 of AP MV Rules praying to grant compensation amount of Rs.22,00,000/- for the death of Ketavath Sankar alleging that on 16.01.2008 the deceased along with his family members namely his wife, daughter and mother were returning to Naidupalem from Tirupathi in a car bearing registration number AP24R4488 and when the car reached Addanki Narkedipalli Highway, a lorry bearing registration number AP26W2440 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and as a result, the deceased and his family members who sustained injuries died on the spot. The driver of the car i.e., the petitioner herein became unconscious and a case in crime number 4 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner on the report given by VRO, later petitioner approached Rompicherla police station and gave a report, but no action was taken and he filed private complaint and same was forwarded to police for investigation and a case in crime number 42 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the lorry.

4. The 1st respondent remained exparte, the 2nd respondent/insurance company filed counter by disputing the manner of accident as averred in the petition and denied the lorry was having valid insurance policy coverage and denying the fact that driver of the lorry was having valid driving license at the time of accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry and the accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles.

5. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal formulated appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal on behalf of petitioner PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked and on behalf of 2nd respondent RWs.1 and 2 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and perused the record.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the claimant himself had contributed the accident and the contents of Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 inquest report show the same and in the inquest report it is narrated that due to the fog the petitioner without observing the vehicle coming in opposite direction went on wrong side and dashed against the opposite vehicle and the 1st respondent is being major and not dependant on his father. The report given by VRO clearly shows that the car was going on wrong side of the road. The car being driven by the 1st respondent/petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and so the petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for respondents appreciated the findings and observations of the tribunal.

8. Now the points for determination are whether the driver of the lorry bearing registration number AP26W2440 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently or whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner in MVOP and whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable.

POINT :

9. After careful reading of the material on record it can be seen that the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident is not disputed. To prove the manner of accident the petitioner himself examined as PW.1. It is not in dispute that he was driving the car bearing registration number AP24R4488 at the time of accident. It is the contention of the respondent that at the first instance the FIR is registered against