JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 08.05.2015 in M.V.O.P. No.85 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short, "the tribunal"), whereby the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,42,500/-with interest 9% per annum against the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and dismissed the claim against the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent, A.P.S.R.T.C., has preferred the present appeal questioning the award passed by the tribunal.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claim is filed under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-on account of the death of Gallepogu Yerra Kotaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), in a road accident that occurred on 16.01.2012.

4. The claimant's case is that on 16.01.2012 at about 9.30 AM their father, deceased, was crossing the road from north to south, the driver of a hired R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 27 X 2412 (hereinafter be referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell on the road, sustained injuries, and died on the spot. On a complaint, the Darsi Police Station has registered a case under Crime No.7 of 2012 under Section 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the offending vehicle's driver.

5. The first respondent, the offending vehicle’s driver, stated that he was working as a driver for the second respondent, the offending vehicle’s owner. The fourth respondent hired the offending vehicle to the second respondent. After the passengers boarded the bus at the Veerayapalem village bus stop, he began to proceed slowly, and the victim abruptly crossed the road, slipped, and fell on the road, causing the accident.

6. The second respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a counter in similar lines to the one filed by the first respondent.

7. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle, filed its counter, claiming that the first respondent did not have a valid licence and that the deceased crossed the road negligently, causing the accident. Any liability had to be paid by the fourth respondent, the custodian of the offending vehicle, so this respondent was not obligated to pay compensation.

8. The fourth respondent, the hirer of the offending vehicle, filed in its counter stating that the offending vehicle, the hired bus, belongs to the second respondent, who entered into an agreement with this respondent for a period of four years. As per column 5 (iv) of the said agreement, the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent, shall be responsible for all claims arising from statutory violations arising out of the operation, such as claims for accidents payable under the MV Act, furthermore, the third respondent, the offending vehicle’s insurer; and the policy was in force and it is liable to pay the compensation amount.

9. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim on behalf of the claimant during the trial, P.W.1 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced; however, a copy of the policy got marked as Ex.B.1.

10. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, the first respondent. The deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and was granted compensation amount as referred to above.

11. I have heard the learned co