THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA NO.259 OF 2006 Dated 23rd February, 2010 Between: The Union of India rep. By its General Manager and another …Appellants And K.Sreenivasulu …Respondent Counsel for the appellants : Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana Counsel for the respondent : Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 15.02.2005 in MVOP No.471 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV-Additional District Judge, Tirupathi (for short “the Tribunal”). The respondents in the MVOP, the Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway and the Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupathi, are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent herein filed the above mentioned MVOP claiming compensation for sustaining grievous injuries in the accident occurred when the auto bearing registration No. AP 03 T 8117, in which he was travelling, was hit by a van bearing registration No. ATC 7171 belonging to the appellants. The Tribunal, having found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, owned by the appellants, and having regard to the nature of the injuries and the income of the injured, awarded Rs.3,31,220/- towards compensation under various heads. At the hearing, Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the appellants, raised three contentions, namely; (1) as the auto was overloaded, the accident has occurred and that therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the van belonging to the appellants is incorrect (2) as the owner and driver of the auto were not impleaded, the MVOP is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and (3) the estimate of Rs.3,700/- per month as the monthly income of the respondent by the Tribunal is erroneous. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, in support of his plea that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, the respondent filed Exs.A1 and A2, which are certified copies of first information report and charge sheet in Crime No.33 of 2000. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 reveals that a crime was registered against the driver of the van accusing him of rash and negligent driving. A charge sheet was also filed under Ex.A2 against him. On behalf of the appellants, R.W.1, an employee, was examined. According to him, the auto was overloaded and therefore, the accident has occurred. The Tribunal has taken into consideration Exs.A1 and A2 and was satisfied that the evidence of the respondent examined as P.W.1 was corroborated by the said two documents. Except the oral assertions of R.W.1 that the auto was overloaded, no evidence was placed by him to support his testimony. The fact that the crime was registered against the van driver itself indicates that the accident has not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. In my considered view, in the absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants except the ipsi dixit of R.W.1, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed error in placing reliance on Exs.A1 and A2 and the testimony of P.W.1 in arriving at the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with this finding. With regard to the second contention, as the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, there was no need for impleading the owner and driver of the auto rickshaw. At any rate, if the appellants wanted to prove that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, it should have taken steps to seek their impleadment. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that non-impleadment of the owner and driver of the auto constitutes non- joinder of necessary parties cannot be accepted. Coming to the third contention of the learned counsel that the estimation of Rs.3,700/- by the Tribunal as the monthly income of the Carpenter by taking the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act is erroneous, I do not find any merit therein. Carpenter is a skilled worker and it is well known that they are much in demand in market. Estimate of Rs.3,700/- per month as the earnings of a Carpenter cannot be said to be either unrealistic or excessive. For the above mentioned reasons, I find no merit in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd February, 2010 vrn