The joint and several liability of the insured and the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in case of accidents.

ORDER :

1. The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P. No. 569 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claim petitioners filed a claim petition under Sections 140, 141 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Kajjam Venkateswarlu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.08.2006.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 05.08.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. while the deceased Venkateswarlu was riding his scooter bearing registration No. AP 7B 1209 from Anumula to Halia, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 27V 4554 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules, came and hit the scooter from backside, as a result, the deceased sustained severe head injury and multiple injuries and while undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries on 12.09.2006. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the use of the motor vehicle bearing No. AP 37V 4554, if so, Kajjam Venkateswarlu received injuries in the said accident and died due to those injuries?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claim petitioners filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. The grounds urged by the appellants/claim petitioners are that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- instead of assessing his own income basing on the evidence and failed to consider Ex.A.6-a bunch of medical bills.

12. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

(2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

13. POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

On considering the evidence of PW-2 and on considering Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry only and the lorry driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of the deceased and due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries. The petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribu