IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent, affirming the liability of both the driver and the insurer for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.) :

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A, filed by the appellant herein/ Insurance Company, is to the Award, dated 03.02.2011, in M.V.O.P. No.37 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Hindupur (‘Tribunal’ for short), whereunder the Tribunal, partly allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of one P.Venkata Narisi Reddy (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.08.2009.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claims, is that:

1st claimant is wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are sons, of the deceased. On 11.08.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased along with one Gurram Konda Venkata Rangappa and Gangadhar, proceeded to Chilamattur by his Hero Honda motorcycle; when they reached near Reddicheruvu Katta, one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA40 K 5406 coming from Gorantla side, with high speed, rash and negligently, hit the deceased motorcycle; as a result, all the three members fell down on the road; the deceased sustained grievous injury to his head and there was bleeding from his ear and nostril and died on the spot; One Gurram Konda Venkata Rangappa and Gangadhar, who travelled along with the deceased on his motorcycle, witnessed the incident. The accident was reported to Gorantla Police Station and a case was registered.

The deceased was a contractor and businessman and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month; the deceased was also having Ac.15.00 cents of land. The deceased was the only breadwinner of his entire family, but due to the sudden demise of the deceased in a road traffic accident, the claimants lost their sole breadwinner. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle. By the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that the respondent No.1 drove the vehicle at normal speed, but the deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and caused the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2/insurer of the offending vehicle filed counter denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The offending vehicle has no valid Registration Certificate and it was driven by a person, having no valid driving license at the time of the accident. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation to the claimants is to be fastened on the insured but not on the insurer. The claim of the claimants is exaggerated for the purpose of the petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for inquiry:

(1) Whether the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Hero Honda bearing No.KA40 K 5406?

(2) Whether the offending Hero Honda rider was holding valid driving license at the time of the accident?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

(4) Whether the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, abnormal and unjust?

(5) To what relief?

7. During inquiry, 2nd claimant, son of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1, apart from examining P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the accident and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondent No.1, he was examined as R.W.1