IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the necessity of proving negligence in motor accident claims and outlines the structured method for calculating compensation based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the Award, dated 26.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.200 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The Appellants are petitioners/claimants and Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are owner and driver of the crime vehicle. The Respondent No.2 is insurer.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i).On 11.06.2005, one V. Narayanaswamy Naidu (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’), who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, started from his village Akkammacheruvupalli to go to Chukkavaripalle to attend the death ceremony of his friend and on the way he went to Gundlapalle to pick up his friend K. Mahadevapillai and at about 8-30 to 9-00 A.M., the deceased started from Gundlapalle Village with his friend as pillion rider and when they reached near Chittoor-Piler Road junction, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 5922, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction to the motorcycle of the deceased and dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased and pillion rider Mahadevapillai fell down on the margin of the road and the wheels of the lorry ran over the deceased, causing crush injury to his head, in result, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

ii) A case came to be registered in Crime No.43 of 2005 against the driver of the crime vehicle and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.202 of 2005 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

iii) On the death of the deceased in a road accident, the claim petition is filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the petition averments and stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he suddenly turned his motorcycle on to the middle of the road and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The deceased is not possessing valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. Though two vehicles are involved in the accident, the petitioners wantonly not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motorcycle and as such petition is bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties. The claim of petitioners is excessive.

6. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement denying the petition averments and stated in the lines of Respondent No.2 that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that the deceased himself is responsible for the accident as he suddenly crossed the road without observing the vehicular traffic. It is further stated that the deceased is not having valid driving license to drive the motorcycle.

7. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry:

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP26 T 5922 or due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No.AP03 P 2659 by the deceased or both?

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

4. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs1to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 aremarked. The respondents 2 and 3 have not adduced any oral evidence before the Tribunal but got marked Ex.B1 by consent.

9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.3,16,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from th