JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. Heard Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy and Sri B. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T. Kumar Babu, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Government Pleader for Arbitration.

2. Challenge in this appeal is against the order and decree dated 17.10.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.88 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short “the learned MACT”). Claim was laid by one V. Venkata Ramana contending that his paternal grandfather V. Narayana (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Settle Vehicle bearing No.AP M 2087 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

3. The offending vehicle was owned by Respondent No.1 / Superintending Engineer, Dam Maintenance, Sundipenta of Srisailam Project and the driver was under the employment of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are in control of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the paternal aunt of the claimant.

4. Learned MACT awarded compensation in favour of the claimant- V. Venkata Ramana, Respondent No.3-paternal Aunt of the claimant and another person by name one Mr.Niranjan, who is said to be the brother of the claimant / petitioner and not a party before the learned MACT. Claim was made for Rs.4,00,000/-. Learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.2,07,000/-.

Case of the claimant:

5. On 29.09.1993 at about 6:00 A.M. while the deceased, was travelling in the offending vehicle from Sunnipenta to the Dam site for attending duty, vehicle met with an accident near Switch yard, Srisailam Project, as a result the vehicle fell into a ditch and deceased and 18 persons died and others sustained injuries. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by the driver i.e. one Mr.Salam, with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. Driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident. The offending vehicle was meant for carrying the employees who were working in the Dam maintenance, Srisailam Project, from Sundipenta to the dam site. The offending vehicle belongs to Respondent No.1.

6. Claimant is the grandson of the deceased. He is the only legal heir and dependent of the deceased. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle who is under the employment of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is representing the State.Therefore, both Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation.

Case of Respondent No.1:

7. The petition allegations are false. The petition is filed after a lapse of 20 years, as there were no legal heirs to the deceased, no claim was immediately filed. Deceased date of birth was 01.07.1949 as per the records. His wife is one Smt. V. Bala Krishnamma and they were having three daughters i.e. Pedda Narasamma, Chinna Narasamma, and Lakshmi Devi and one son by name Venkateswarlu. The petitioner is no way connected to the deceased.

Case of Respondent No.3:

8. Respondent No.3 is the daughter of the deceased. She was not added as claimant / petitioner in the main O.P., hence filed application for impleadment. The accident has occurred on 29.09.1993. Rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for accident. She is the daughter of the deceased, hence entitled for half share in compensation amount awarded.

9. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP M 2087?

2. Whether the deceased Mr.V.Narayana, died in the road accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If So, to what amount and against whom?

4. To what relief?

10. Evidence before the learned MACT:

11. Arguments in the appeal:

11(1). For the appellant:

(i). Awarding of compensation in favour of one Mr.Niranjan, brother of the claimant/appellant is inc