IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed the principle of liability in motor vehicle accidents, emphasizing the role of negligence and the insurance company's obligation to compensate.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 06.08.2018, in M.V.O.P. No. 370 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal i.e. Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (“Tribunal” for short) whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with regard to the death of Sake Ramana (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.06.2014 at 7.45 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.7,78,500/- as compensation.

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 petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 370 of 2014 according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, is that:

The deceased Ramana was hale and healthy. He was aged about 28 years. He was doing milk business and coolie and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 17.06.2014 at 7.45 p.m. deceased Ramana and one Murali were proceeding on the motor bike, bearing No. AP-28-C-8684 from Gummepalli village to Madugupalli village. When they reached C. Bandameedapalli village on Ananthapuramu-Tadipatri road, one Bangi Venkata Naresh Babu (R6) drove the Pulsar bike, bearing No. AP-02-AN-9241 in their opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. The deceased Ramana and the pillion rider Murali fell on the road. Meanwhile Boya Nallappa (R5), who was driving the vehicle TATA ACE bearing No. AP-02-TA-5858 in a rash and negligent manner, came from their behind, and dashed against the deceased and dragged him on the road for some distance and the deceased Ramana sustained severe injuries. He died at Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, while taking treatment. In this connection a case was registered in Cr. No. 84/2014 of Singanamala PS for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against R5 and R6. Petitioners alleged that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R5 and R6 only. R1 to R4, being the insured and the insurers of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 remained ex-parte and the claim against respondent No. 7 was abated.

5. The respondent No. 2 got filed a counter contending in substance that it is the insurer of TATA ACE, bearing No. AP-02-TA-5858. The accident was occurred when the deceased drove his motorbike in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the rules. The respondent No. 5 was driving the TATA ACE slowly and meticulously and the petitioners managed the police and registered a false case. When respondent No. 5 dashed against the deceased and the deceased fell down on the road, there was no space between the offending vehicle i.e. TATA ACE and the place where the deceased fell down. Hence there was no fault on the part of respondent No. 5. The claim is bad for non-joinder of rider, insured and insurer of Pulsar motor bike. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the driver of TATA ACE bearing No. AP-02/TA 5858 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident?

(2) Whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was under their control at the time of the accident?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how to what extent and from which respondent?

(4) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent, RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and Ex.B1, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked.

8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered