JUDGMENT :

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No.86 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 & 2 only, the 2 nd respondent/New India Assurance Company preferred the instant appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.11.2005.

4. Facts germane to dispose of the present appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

On 08.11.2005 at 12.30 noon the petitioner and his wife and in-laws were proceeding from Chennai to Chittoor in a car of the 1st respondent bearing registration No.TN 23C 7727, which was engaged by the in-laws of the petitioner on hire, and when they reached MBT road near Perumpulipakkam, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the milk tanker of the 3rd respondent bearing registration No.TN 27P 4449, which was proceeding in front of the car, and later the car went in a zig-zag manner and hit the divider of the road, as a result, all the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. The S.H.O., Kaveripakkam P.S. registered a case in Crime No.411 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the car of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the car. The 3rd respondent is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of the milk tanker. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. The 3rd respondent was set ex parte.

6. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed written statements separately by denying the manner of accident.

i) It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk tanker and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.

ii) It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company that the car was insured as a private vehicle and since the car has been given for hire and reward, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the insurance policy does not cover the cases which fall under ‘hire and reward’, the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk tanker of the 3rd respondent, as such, the appellant/Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

iii) It is pleaded by the 4th respondent/United India Insurance company that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car of the 1st respondent, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.TN 23C 7727 or the milk tanker bearing No.TN 27P 4449?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the resp