JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent/ Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.1355 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur and the respondents are the petitioners and respondent No.1 in the said case.

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 claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Ghanta Sudheer Kumar in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 31.08.2010.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 31.08.2010 while the deceased Sudheer Kumar was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 31M 596 from his village and when he reached the center, an engineering student of his village requested him to give lift, for which, he accepted and asked him to sit on his back side, when they reached Boyapalem center, at about 9.30 a.m., one gas tanker lorry bearing No.AP 16W 0344 belonging to first respondent, came from Guntur side in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, resulting which, the deceased Sudheer Kumar fell down and the left side front wheel of the lorry ran over the head of Sudheer Kumar and dragged him to some distance, due to that the deceased died on the spot itself and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred on 31.08.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. is due to rash and negligent driving of the Gas Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 16W 0344 by its driver, which resulted in death of Ghanta Sudheer Kumar?

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

iii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that there was a contributory negligence of 15% on the part of PW4, who was the rider of motor cycle at the time of accident and there was a negligence of 85% on the part of driver of offending gas tanker lorry and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,62,450/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the second respondent filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?

11. POINT :-

On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that there was a contributory negligence of 15% on the part of PW4, who was the rider of motor cycle at the time of accident and there was a negligence of 85% on the part of driver of offending gas tanker lorry. The material on record reveals that First Information Report was registered against the driver of the gas tanker and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the driver of gas tanker.

12. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW4. PW2 is one of the eye witness to the accident. PW2 stated in his evidence in cross examination that