The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a motor vehicle accident under the Motor Vehicles Act and the apportionment of compensation based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 29.09.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1013 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

4. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- for the death of one Velugapudi Sridhar Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 20.03.2010, the deceased, along with his sister, were returning to Warangal after seeing the son of his sister in Greenwood School at Yerragattu Gutta of Hanamkonda, on Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 R 7572 and when they reached near Swarna Palace on Narsampet Road, one DCM Van bearing No.AP 36 V 8617, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter, as a result of which, the deceased and his sister fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Since the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM, respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the said DCM Van are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed written statement, denying the averments made in the claim-petition and also stated that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, as such, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation.

6. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the DCM Van, as such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Respondents 3 and 4 filed their counter stating that the deceased was looking after their welfare and they sought to apportion the compensation, if any granted, along with the claimant.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the motor vehicle accident, dated 20.03.2010 arose on account of negligence of the driver of Eicher DCM Van bearing registration No.AP 36 V 8617?

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

3. To what relief?

9. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.15,53,232/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Out of the said compensation, only Rs.3,00,000/- was apportioned to the claimant towards her share and the remaining amount was apportioned to the 4th respondent, who is the mother of the deceased. Being not satisfied with the said apportionment the claimant filed the present appeal.

11. Heard and perused the record.

12. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van by its driver, to which the Tribunal afte