The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation for accidents involving vehicles insured under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the calculation of compensation based on the guidelines under Section 163-A of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No. 201 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

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 petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Tella Phanitapu Nagaraju in a road accident that took place on 15.10.2010.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:

On 15.10.2010 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased was going towards Eluru from J.R.Gudem in his auto along with passengers and when the auto reached near Tookala bridge, a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 37AF 3852 & AP 37Y 2241 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing the vehicles, came in opposite direction and hit the auto of the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the tractor-trailer. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. The respondents filed their written statements separately by denying the manner of accident and age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the driver of the tractor-trailer was not having a valid driving licence to drive the same and therefore, the 1st respondent violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether the deceased Phanitapu Nagaraju died in motor vehicle accident i.e., in the accident caused by the tractor & trailer bearing No. AP 37AF 3852 and AP 37Y 2241 on 15.12.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. near Milk Product Company, Tookala Bridge between Eluru and J.R.Gudem?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, granted an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit by both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. The appellant/Insurance company mainly contended that the driver of the tractor-trailer was holding learner’s licence at the time of accident and he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle and therefore, the owner of the tractor-trailer/1st respondent committed breach of the terms and conditions of Ex.B.3-insurance policy, and that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 9% p.a. which is exorbitant and therefore, the same may be reduced.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

12. POINT: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensat