Driver not a necessary party in all motor accident claims under Section 166; non-impleadment does not invalidate claim if owner's vicarious liability is established.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company in both the appeals.

2. The appellants in MACMA No.1774 of 2017 are the claimants in MVOP No.318 of 2010. They are the respondents in MACMA No.750 of 2017.

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nellore is the appellant in MACMA No.750 of 2017 and one of the respondents in MACMA No.1774 of 2017.

4. The claimants filed MVOP No.318 of 2010 in the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (in short ‘the Tribunal’) under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘MV Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on account of the death of Dr.Erramreddy Prasad Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), their predecessor, in a road accident, dated 03.10.2008.

5. The claim petition was filed inter alia on the averments that the deceased was aged about 40 years. He was a Dentist, worked as Managing Director of Anjana Dental Care Private Limited, T-Nagar, Chennai, and was drawing Rs.50,000/- per month as salary by the date of his accident. Apart from that he was working as Associate Professor in Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore and other reputed institutions. He was an income tax assessee. He got family, parents, wife and son. On 03.06.2009 at 6 p.m. the deceased was proceeding from Chennai to Nellore in his Car bearing registration No.TN-07-AL-2302, and when reached near Elavur Three Lane Flyover, on G. N. T. Road, one lorry bearing registration No.AP-26-W-6989, came from Nellore towards Chennai in opposite direction, being driven by the 1st respondent-G. Sreeramulu Naidu, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Car of the deceased, as a result the front portion of the Car of the deceased was crushed under the lorry, and the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred due to sole rash and negligence driving of the driver of the lorry.

6. The widow and son of the deceased filed the claim petition. Parents of the deceased were not added in the claim petition and they were shown as respondents No.3 & 4 in the claim petition.

7. The 1st respondent in MVOP, owner-cum-driver of the Lorry remained ex parte.

8. The 2nd respondent in MVOP, New India Assurance Company, filed counter denying the allegations. Inter alia, it was submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.TN-07-AL-2302 and due to negligence of driver of lorry. The owner and the insurance company of the car were also necessary parties and in their absence, the petition was bad for non-joinder of parties.

9. The 3rd respondent in MVOP, the mother of the deceased, filed counter, which was adopted by the 4th respondent in MVOP, the father of the deceased. It was submitted that with ulterior motive, the claimants had not impleaded the mother and father of the deceased in the claim petition as claimants, though they were also entitled for compensation and prayed to apportion the compensation to them as well.

10. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the death of Dr. Erramreddy Prasad Reddy was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-26-W- 6989 owned by R1?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, against whom?

3. To what relief?

11. On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 5, namely, Smt. Erramreddy Mamatha (1st claimant), Sri Shaik Rajack (eyewitness), Sri G. Kesavardhana Reddy, Chartered Accountant, (through Commissioner), Dr. S.Karthikeyan (through Commissioner) and Sri T.Munivel, were examined and Exs.A1 to A24 through PWs 1 to 3, Exs.C1 to C41 through PW 3, and Exs.X1 & Ex.X2 through PW 5 were marked. They are, Ex.A1-Attested ph