The judgment reaffirms the principles of establishing liability in motor accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on evidence of rash and negligent driving, assessment of disability, and validity of the driver's license for the vehicle driven.

JUDGMENT

1. M.A.C.M.A.No.3009 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner and M.A.C.M.A.No.508 of 2023 is filed by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company in M.V.O.P.No.419 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and order passed in M.V.O.P.No.419 of 2010, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

4. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.7, 50, 000.00 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 19/10/2009.

5. Facts germane to dispose of the appeals may briefly be stated as follows:

On 19/10/2009 the petitioner was proceeding on a Tata Magic Van bearing registration No.AP 35V 2776 to go to Vizianagaram and when the van reached near Chandakapeta junction, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said van at high speed, he lost control over the van and dashed a stationed lorry which was parked towards extreme left margin of the road, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The S.H.O., Bondapalli P.S., Vizianagaram registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2009 against the driver of the van for the offences punishable under Ss. 338 and 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending van, hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

6. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner.

i) It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the offending van was insured with the 3rd respondent and the policy was in force, as such, the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation.

ii) The 3rd respondent/Insurance company pleaded that the driver of the offending van was not having valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Tata Magic Van) bearing No.AP 35V 2776 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

9. 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 van and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and granted a total compensation of Rs.3, 93, 800.00 with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against all the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3009 of 2014 for enhancement of compensation, while the 3rd respondent/Insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.508 of 2023 questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

10. Heard Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.3009 of 2014), Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance company (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.508 of 2023), and Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, and perused the record.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the c