HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.362 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree in M.V.O.P. No.413 of 1998 dated 22-10-1999 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Appellants are claimants and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. Claimants are parents of the deceased, respondent No.1 is owner of the Van bearing No.TSA – 3229, respondent No.2 is owner of the lorry bearing No.TN-31-1963 and respondent No.3 is United India Insurance Company Limited and it is insurer of both respondent Nos.1 and 2’s vehicles. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: (a) On 11-04-1998 at about 4-05 PM, while the claimants along with their child were travelling in the Van bearing No.TSA – 3229 belonging to respondent No.1, lorry bearing No.TN-31-1963 belonging to respondent No.2, came in the opposite direction and there was head on collision between those two vehicles, wherein several persons sustained injuries and a two years old child viz., T. Kannemma @ Munilakshmi, daughter of the claimants, died. A case in Crime No.114 of 1998 was registered about the accident against drivers of both the vehicles, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati as C.C. No.654 of 1998. Claimants filed the M.V.O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were remained ex parte and respondent No.3 alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Van TSA 3229 and lorry TN 31 1963 by the respective drivers ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To substantiate their case, claimants got examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and got marked Exs.A-1 to A- 4. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW.3 was examined and Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, holding that driver of the van belonging to respondent No.1 alone was negligent and is liable for occurrence of the accident, Tribunal granted a compensation Rs.10,000/- to the claimants for the death of the deceased against respondent No.1 alone, as there was no valid insurance policy for the van, while dismissing the claim against respondent Nos.2 and 3, owner of the lorry and its insurer respectively. Aggrieved of the same, claimants filed this appeal. 9. The facts are not in dispute. There is no dispute that deceased was two years old. There is also no dispute that as per the FIR, the van in which deceased was travelling, went in high speed and while overtaking, dashed the lorry coming in the opposite direction and on account of the accident, deceased died. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants (appellants) contends that as both the vehicles are involved in the accident, there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry also and there is evidence to that extent, as such, Tribunal ought to have apportioned the compensation between both the vehicles and a minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/- ought to have been granted for the death of the deceased. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company – respondent No.3 contends that Ex.A-1 FIR clearly reveals that accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the van in which deceased was travelling, as such, Tribunal has rightly fastened liability only against owner of the van, respondent No.1, and not against owner of the lorry, respondent No.2, and its insurer, respondent No.3, and there are no grounds to revoke the same. 12. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 13. No doubt, Ex.A-1 FIR shows that van driver was negligent as he drove the van at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the vehicle in front of him, dashed against the lorry. But, possibility of the driver of the lorry averting the accident cannot be completely ruled out, as though the van was overtaking a vehicle, still there would be possibility for the driver of the lorry to avert the accident. 14. Furthermore, evidence of PW.1 reveals that accident has taken place on account of negligence of both the vehicle drivers and lorry driver was not examined to say that there was no negligence on his part. Thus, the only evidence available on record shows that lorry driver was also negligent. 15. In these circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that van had no valid insurance and there is absolutely no possibility of claimants getting any compensation from the owner of the van and this being a social welfare legislation, claimants deserve some compensation from the insurance company of the lorry and undisputedly for the death of a person minimum compensation payable is Rs.50,000/-; further the compensation can be apportioned between both the vehicles. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that both the van and lorry drivers are responsible for the accident, as such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable for payment of compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased and consequently respondent No.3 being insurer of the lorry of respondent No.2 is also jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation. It is further held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the death of the deceased i.e., Rs.25,000/- payable by respondent No.1 and Rs.25,000/- payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 17. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 8, 2010. PV