JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are the petitioner and the 1st respondent in O.P.No.393 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum– III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur. The appellant filed the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short „the Act‟) read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who is wife of the petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.06.2008.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows:

On 10.06.2008 the deceased along with others was proceeding in an auto bearing registration No. AP 02W 8426 to go to Government General Hospital, Ananthapur, and when the auto reached Intel Engineering College, a vehicle came in opposite direction and both the vehicles came into contact which resulted in scratching at the right side of the auto and the death of the deceased on the spot. The accident occurred out of use of the said auto. The police, Ananthapur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2008 against the driver of the auto. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending auto, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the claim of the petitioner. It is pleaded that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the unidentified vehicle, hence, the

2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the auto bearing No. AP 02 W 8426 and caused death of deceased G. Kavitha or not?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation if so to what amount and from which of the respondent?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, on considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against both the respondents towards compensation to the petitioner, against which, this instant appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company.

9. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

11. POINT: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover, the petitioner in order to prove his case, got examined himself as P.W.1. As per his evidence, on 10.06.2008 at about 2.00 a.m., he and his wife along with others were proceeding in an auto bearing registration No. AP 02W 8426 to go to Government General Hospital, and when the auto reached near Intel Engineering College, an unidentified vehicle came in opposite direction and both the vehicles came into contact with each other which resulted i