IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that in cases of motor vehicle accidents, joint liability for compensation can be imposed on multiple insurers based on negligence.

JUDGMENT :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the Award, dated 27.03.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 880 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with claim for compensation made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein/claimants for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of the death of one Kundrapu Arjunarao (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.10.2016, allowed the claim.

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 claim, is that:

1st claimant is wife, 2nd claimant is minor daughter and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents, of the deceased. On 29.10.2006 at about 5.45 PM, the deceased was travelling with others in an auto bearing registration No. AP5 Y 2702 from Rajanagaram side towards Vadisaleru; when the said auto reached the outskirts of Vadisaleru village, respondent No. 1/driver of the car bearing registration No. AP16 BA 1836 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed the auto forcibly; as a result, the auto was completely damaged and the deceased and other passengers of the said auto sustained grievous injuries; all the injured persons were shifted to GSL Hospital, Rajanagaram; later, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Respondent No. 1 is the driver, 2nd respondent is owner and 5th respondent is insurer, of the car bearing registration No. AP16 BA1836; 3rd respondent is owner and 4th respondent is insurer, of the auto bearing registration No. AP5 Y 2702. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 remains ex-parte.

5. Respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto bearing registration No. AP5Y 2702 filed counter contending that the respondent No. 1/driver of the car has valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident; compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive; the deceased did not possess valid driving license.

6. Respondent No. 5/insurer of the car bearing registration No. AP16 BA1836 filed counter contending that the respondent No. 1 was not the registered driver of the car and he did not carry valid, proper and effective LMV transport driving license. The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the OP.

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

(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1 driver of Car bearing No. AP16 BA 1836?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

8. During inquiry, the wife of the deceased in M.V.O.P. No. 880 of 2011 was examined as PW-1, apart from examining PW-2, who is the eyewitness to the accident and got exhibited Exs.A1 to 5. None examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 documents are marked on behalf of the respondents.

9. On consideration of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal, on issue No. 1, held that the accident occurred on account of composite negligence of drivers of both car and auto and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In respect of issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.7,83,000/- and directed the insurers i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to deposit the said sum with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation among the claimants and permitted them to withdraw their respective shares. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto preferred the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto the a