The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claims related to accidents due to vehicle negligence despite involvement of railway administration.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved over the award dated 21.4.2008 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 564 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of death of one T. Prasad in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 9.6.2005. It was averred in the claim petition that on 9.6.2005 at about 1 p.m. the deceased T. Prasad was proceeding on the tractor - trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 21 - V 2919 and AP 21 - V 2920 as driver. When the said tractor was crossing the unmanned railway gate No. 137 in between Kurnool town and Dupadu Railway Station, it being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a train, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. It was further averred that at the time of death, the deceased was aged 29 years and used to earn Rs. 4,000 per month. The claimants being dependent on the income of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation.

3. The respondent No. 5 herein is the owner of the said tractor and trailer. He remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant herein being the insurer of the said tractor and trailer, filed the counter before the Tribunal, denying the averments made in the claim petition, the manner of accident and income of the deceased. It further stated that there was negligence on the part of Railways for keeping the railway gate without any guard to watch the vehicular movements.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues for settlement:
(1) Whether the accident that occurred on 9.6.2005 at about 1 p.m. at unmanned railway level crossing gate No. 137, in between Kurnool and Dupadu Railway Station, resulting in death of T. Prasad was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor - trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 21 - V 2919 and 2920 by its driver or was there any negligence on the part of the railway authorities?
(2) Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?
(3) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try this petition?
(4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 5,00,000 towards compensation? If not, to what extent and from whom?
(5) To what relief?
Additional Issues:
(1) Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try this case and grant compensation?
(2) Whether this OP is maintainable or not?

5. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW 1 was examined and Exh. B1 was marked.

6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by its driver, which resulted in the death of the deceased and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the claim petition. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal took average earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1,800 per month and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,44,800 on account of loss of dependency. Adding to this, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 towards loss to estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,79,800 and directed the insurance company and the owner of the crime vehicle to pay the same, jointly and severally, with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum.

7. Aggrieved over the same, the insuranc