IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a valid driving license for the driver significantly impacts liability in motor vehicle accident claims, reinforcing the need for adherence to traffic regulations.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 08.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 290 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with regard to the death of the Doddi Venkataramana (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 02.06.2014 at 02.15 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.7,18,000/-.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned 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:

(i) Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Doddi Venkataramana. He was aged 38 years and working as labourer. He was earning Rs.300/- per day.

(ii) On 02.06.2014 at about 02.15 p.m. the deceased and others were travelling in the auto of the respondent No. 5 bearing No. AP 35 W 4826 (“offending vehicle” for short), from Bobbili to Balla Krishnapuram Village. The auto reached near FCI godown, Antipeta Village. The respondent No. 5’s auto driver i.e. respondent No. 4 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 63, which came in opposite direction. Deceased and other sustained simple and grievous injuries. All of them including the deceased were shifted to C.H.C. Bobbili and from thereafter, he was shifted to K.G.H. Visakhapatnam. On the way, he succumbed to the injuries.

(iii) The deceased was contributing his earnings to the claimants. They spent Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral expenses and transport expenditure and they lost their sole earning member.

(iv) Station House Officer, Seethanagaram police station, registered a case in Crime No. 81 of 2014 against respondent No. 1 (bus driver) and later on, filed charge sheet against respondent No. 4, who is the driver of the auto. Hence, claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4......

(i) Respondent No. 1, the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and respondent Nos.4 and 5 driver and owner of the offending auto remained ex-parte.

(ii) Respondent No. 3 got filed a written statement, which is adopted by respondent No. 2. They denied and disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased and manner of the accident. Their contention is that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. But the negligence was on the part of the respondent No. 4, who drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and hence, claim is to be dismissed against them.

(iii) Respondent No. 6, the Insurance Company got filed counter contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the manner of the accident. Claimants are not dependents on the deceased. Respondent No. 4 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the auto and there is breach of conditions, their liability is to subject to respondent No. 5’s auto was insured with them. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver or due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 (A.P.S.R.T.C. bus) or both of them have contributed for the accident and caused the death of the deceased Doddi Venkataramana, if so, to what percentage?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. A