The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence by the car driver and affirmed the compensation awarded, emphasizing that non-joinder of necessary parties is not fatal to the claim.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District at Nellore (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2018 dated 04.05.2022.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the Swift Dezire Car bearing No.AP 26 BG 8778 (hereinafter referred as “crime car”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife and children of one Chintha Venkata Ramana Reddy (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the driver and owner of the said crime car.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 14.12.2017 at about 03.50 p.m., while the deceased being pillion rider along with one Valluru Ramana Reddy proceeding on Honda Activa Scooty bearing No.AP 26 DC 0763 and when they reached Gandhisangam, Gundalammapalem, the 1^st respondent being driver of the crime car driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said two wheeler in opposite direction, resulted the deceased and rider of the scooty fell down under a pulsor motorcycle, which was coming its behind, and sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, on the intervening night of 15/16.12.2017 at about 04.00 a.m., the deceased was succumbed to injuries.

ii). The deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing rice business and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime car.

5. The respondent No.2/owner filed counter, which was adopted by the respondent No.1/driver, denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime car was validly insured with the 3^rd respondent/insurer; that the accident occurred was due to negligence on the part of the rider of the scooty, but not 1^st respondent; that the owner and insurer of the scooty are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is collision between both the vehicles, thereby, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the scooty; that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1. Whether the death of the deceased was caused in Motor Vehicle accident due to rash and negligence of driver of car bearing No.AP 26 BG 8778?

2. Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of scooty in accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? and

4. To what relief?”

8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3/insurer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

9. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the crime vehicle by its driver/1st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.11,90,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

10. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle.

11. Heard Sri B.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants.

12. Sri B.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits t