Negligence in vehicle parking leads to liability for compensation in accident cases, with courts ensuring just compensation even without cross-appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed against the decree and order dated 08.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.483 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short “the learned MACT”).

2. Appellant herein is Respondent No.2 / insurer, Respondent No.5 herein is the owner of the Tipper bearing No.AP 26 Y 5898 (for short “the offending vehicle”) and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the claimants before the learned MACT under the impugned proceedings. Questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded this appeal is filed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the Respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

4. One Bellam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), husband of Claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of Claimant No.4, aged about „37‟ years owning Ac.5.00 of land was cultivating the personally apart from doing milk vending business and taking care of the family by contributing his all income at Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. On 09.08.2013 the offending vehicle was parked on the road near „Janani Babu Emo Kolla Form‟ on Nellore to Jonnawada road. At about 10:30 P.M., while deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle dashed the offending vehicle on its diesel tank. Due to which, the deceased suffered instantaneous death. The negligent parking of offending vehicle on the road without taking proper precautions and signals is the cause for the accident.

6. A case in Crime No.355 of 2013 for the offences under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet was filed against him before the concerned Court.

7. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the authorized insurer with whom the vehicle was insured. Cause of accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Death of deceased exposed all the claimants to inexplicable trauma and loss. Hence they are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

8. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. He remained ex parte.

Case of Respondent No.2:

9. The claimants shall prove all the allegations made; viz. as to accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in parking the same, age, occupation, income of the deceased, dependency of claimants, loss of dependency, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle. The contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle cannot be ignored. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

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

i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing No.AP 26 Y 5898?

ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and amount?

iii) To what relief?

11. Evidence before the learned MACT: