JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.08.2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, passed in M.V.O.P.No.241 of 2012, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 1 and 2, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellant-Respondent No.2-

Insurance Company.

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 claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased K.Vishnuvardhan in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 03.06.2010.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

The petitioner is the mother of the deceased K.Vishnuvardhan.

The deceased and his father Raghavaiah were running tourist buses in the name and style of Ayyappa Tours and Travels at old bus stand, Kurnool. On 03.06.2010 at 11.00 a.m., the deceased and the bus driver P.Narayana had gone YMC Church, Kurnool, where the bus bearing No.AP02T 6399, hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’, was parked, to send the bus to Tadipatri marriage. The deceased was standing on the rear side and giving signals to the driver for taking the bus on reverse side, but the driver, without following the signals, has taken the bus on reverse direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, accident was occurred and the deceased sustained multiple injuries, later succumbed to injuries.

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

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

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Tourist bus bearing No.AP02T 6399?

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

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 the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.12,39,000/- to the claimant towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the second respondent Insurance Company filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

9. Heard Smt A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for second respondent Insurance Company and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

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

11. POINT :

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. As per the evidence of PW2, while he was present at accident spot at relevant time, as he was called by the deceased for T.V. repair to the offending vehicle, he noticed the accident in question which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle reversed the bus in a rash and negligent manner without taking any proper precautions. Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the offending bus. Ex.A2