Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants are not required to prove negligence; the onus lies on the insurer to establish any negligence to deny compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the Award, dt.17.02.2022, in MVOP.No.72 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

Brief facts of the Case :

2. The claimants, who are wife, parents and children of the deceased-Janagama Balakishan Goud, filed a petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of their son in a motor accident that took place on 28.01.2016. On the fateful day, after completion of work, while the deceased was returning from Kamareddy to Kyasampally Village on Motorcycle bearing No.AP-36-Q-2845, when he reached near TTD Kalyana Mandampam, Sircilla Road, Kamareddy town, at about 04.00 am., he lost control over the vehicle, fell down on the road and sustained head injury. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Rudra Multi Special Hospital, Kamareddy, and from there he was shifted to Sree Balaji Hospital, Secunderabad, for better treatment and due to his precarious condition, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 06.02.2016.

3. On the complaint made by the father of the deceased i.e., 2nd claimant, a case in Cr.No.24/2016 was registered and after completion of investigation, final report was also laid before the Competent Court.

4. The claimants contend that the deceased was hale & healthy and working as Mechanic on contract basis at TSRTC, Kamareddy Depot and also working as Bus Driver at Prathibha High School and in all, used to earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., and on account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their sole breadwinner, and that the 1^st respondent being the owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. The Tribunal after due enquiry and examining the evidence available on record, held that the accident has occurred due to the use of the subject vehicle, however, in the manner of accident held that the deceased had contributed to the accident and assessed it at 50%, and on arriving at a total compensation of Rs.16,00,559/-, awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No.1 & 2 therein, as jointly and severally liable. Aggrieved by the said Award, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance-Company.

6. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for respondents-claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal proceeded with wrong presumption that once involvement of vehicle in an accident is established, in view of the wording used in Section 163 -A “arising out of the use of the vehicle”, the claimants can maintain petition under A of the Act. He further contended that since the vehicle was driven by the deceased at the material time of accident, he steps into the shoes of the owner and therefore, claim petition itself is not maintainable, as he himself was the tortfeasor as the accident occurred due to his negligence, and the Tribunal under misconception of facts and law, failed to appreciate the fact that even for the claims under -A, the compensation is based on ‘fault