COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.3075 of 2012 is filed by the claim petitioner and M.A.C.M.A.No.1630 of 2013 is filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company in M.V.O.P.No.347 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

2. Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and order passed in M.V.O.P.No.347 of 2008, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

4. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 01.09.2007.

5. Facts germane to dispose of the appeals may briefly be stated as follows:

On 01.09.2007 the petitioner along with others were travelling in a bus bearing No.KA 05E 7071 belonging to the 1st respondent from Kadapa to Bangalore and at about 11.30 p.m. when the bus reached near a culvert at Buggaletipalli situated on Kadapa- Rayachoty N.H.18, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the bus and thereby, the bus turned turtle resulting in injuries to the petitioner. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

6. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the 1st respondent used the offending vehicle in violation of the permit conditions, the driver of the offending bus did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive, therefore, the Insurance company prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2) Whether R.1’s driver was having valid licence at the time of the accident?

3) Whether respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant as prayed for?

4) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom?

5) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 and Exs.X.2 to X.5 were marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and granted a total compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against both the respondents and directed 2nd respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner in the first instance and later recover the same from the 1st respondent by filing an execution petition. Aggrieved against the said order, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1630 of 2013 questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal, while the petitioner filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3075 of 2012 for enhancement of the compensation.

10. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance company (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1630 of

2013), and Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.3075 of 2012) and perused the record.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claim petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensa