IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the distinction between claims under Sections 163-A and 166 of the MV Act, emphasizing the necessity of establishing negligence for appropriate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Order, dated 17.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 1559 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim of compensation laid under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) with regard to the death of Potu Tripura Sundara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.06.2012 at 10:00 A.M. awarded a sum of Rs.9,59,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and apportioned Rs.3,59,500/- to first claimant/wife and Rs.2,00,000/- to the second claimant/minor daughter, Rs.1,00,000/- to the third claimant/minor son and Rs.1,50,000/- each to the fourth and fifth claimants, being parents of the deceased, respectively. To award more compensation than prayed, the Tribunal relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tatha Sreevani and Others v. D. Vijaya Kumar and Others, 2014 ACJ 516.

2. Appellant herein is no other than the second respondent/insurer in the aforesaid M.V.O.P. No. 1559 of 2012.

3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner is the wife, second and third petitioners are the minor children and fourth and fifth petitioners are the aged parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 35 years and is driver-cum-owner of a Lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TV 1275 and 10 days prior to 12.06.2012, he went to Guwahati on his Lorry and while returning to Hyderabad on 12.06.2012 at about 10:00 A.M. when he reached near Margram Village of Bhirbhun District, West Bengal State, another Lorry bearing registration No. AP 07 TC 3535 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry of the deceased. As a result the deceased died on the spot. Immediately his body was shifted to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Rampurhut, where the doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The Magram Police of Bhirbhun district of West Bengal registered the accident as a case in Crime No. 80 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the first respondent. First respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle is squarely liable for the rash and negligent act of his driver. The second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim.

5. First respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

6. Second respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed written statement resisting the prayer of the petitioners and contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle. They have to prove the manner of the accident and their dependency. They have to prove every allegation made in the claim. The deceased was going in his Lorry with high speed and was negligent in causing the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Hence, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No. AP 07 TC 3535?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of tria