JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.11.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, at Chittoor, granting a compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

The appellant herein is the 2nd petitioner and respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd petitioner in the O.P. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

The case of the claimants is that they filed the O.P.

claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of one Poornasekhar in the accident occurred on 01.10.2001. One Poornasekhar, aged about 19 years, was

2 VGKR, J working as cleaner under the 1st respondent. On the fateful day, in the midnight at 12.00 ‘O’ clock, Poornasekhar was going in the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-3800 from Chennai to Guntur and after unloading the milk at Chennai, the lorry-milk tanker was returning and when it reached in between 243-242/8 K.M. stone, the driver of the milk tanker had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the backside of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP- 27-T-5969, which was parked near Mocherla village. Poornasekhar, who was travelling in the milk tanker as a cleaner, sustained multiple injuries all over the body and succumbed to injuries on the spot. A case in Crime No.63 of 2001 under Section 304-A IPC was registered by the Gudlur Police Station against the driver of the milk tanker. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s milk tanker, the 1st respondent being the owner of the milk tanker and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the milk tanker are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claimants claimed compensation from the respondents.

3 VGKR, J While the 1st respondent-owner of the milk tanker remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its counter, denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased. They pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the stationed lorry. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, who are owner and insurer of the stationed lorry AP-27-T-

5969.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-1800 or the lorry bearing No.AP-

27-T-5969 or any one of them?

2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what quantum and from whom?

During the course of enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the

4 VGKR, J claimant. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the contesting 2nd respondent. But, Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

Basing on the material on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.1,56,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay only 75% of the compensation awarded to the 2nd petitioner, who is none other than the father of the deceased-Poornasekhar. Challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant filed the present appeal.

Now the point for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal needs any interference and whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the contributory negligence of 25% fixed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. Learned standing

5 VGKR, J counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company also argued that the appellant is not entitled for any enhanced compensation as sought for.

As seen from t