JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in M.V.O.P.No.1349 of 2004, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners and directed respondent Nos.2 & 3 to pay 50% of the compensation amount and also directed respondent Nos.4 & 5 to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount, this instant appeal is preferred by the 5th respondent/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 petition. 3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Bonu Atchutha Rao, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.12.2003. 4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows: On 20.12.2003 the deceased and his wife were proceeding from Kotha Road to Dockyard in an auto bearing registration No.AP 31U 5951 and when the auto reached near Ayyappa Swamy Temple Junction, the auto, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing anything, dashed a lorry bearing registration No.AP 16TU 0490 on its front left side, resultantly, the deceased and his wife sustained grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 30.12.2003 while undergoing treatment. The driver of the lorry was also driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed at the time of accident. The S.H.O., Gajuwaka Traffic P.S. registered a case in crime No.136 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC against the driver of the auto. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the Auto. The 4th respondent is owner and the 5th respondent is insurer of the lorry. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 were set ex parte. 6. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. The 4th respondent is owner and the 5th respondent is insurer of the lorry. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 were set ex parte. 6. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the police did not take necessary steps for inspection of the lorry, therefore, the 2nd respondent prays to dismiss the petition. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent that the accident took place not due to the fault of the driver of the auto, but due to the fault of the lorry driver, the auto was not insured with the 3rd respondent, the driver of the auto was not holding valid driving licence, though the lorry was involved in the accident, the police did not arrest the driver of the lorry or sent any requisition to the concerned to inspect it, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is pleaded by the 5th respondent that the police registered a case against the driver of the auto, hence, the petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed against the 5th respondent. 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and whether it resulted in death to the victim? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? 3) Which of the respondents are liable to pay compensation? 4) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 9. 3) Which of the respondents are liable to pay compensation? 4) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the auto and the lorry involved in the accident and accordingly, allowed the petition and granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal directed respondent Nos.2 & 3 to pay 50% of the compensation amount and also directed respondent Nos.4 & 5 to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount to the petitioners. Questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal, the 5th respondent/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court and to what extent? 12. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending vehicles, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased. As per her evidence, on 20.12.2003 her husband was going to BHPV in the offending auto, when the auto reached Ayyappa Temple, the accident occurred, by that time, she and her husband were in the auto, the lorry dashed their auto and both the vehicles were collided, and due to that she and her husband sustained injuries. She categorically deposed in her evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the auto and the lorry. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that a case in crime No.136 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the offending auto by the S.H.O., Gajuwaka Traffic P.S., therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that a case in crime No.136 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the offending auto by the S.H.O., Gajuwaka Traffic P.S., therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 14. The case of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, the driver of the auto was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner, at the same time, the driver of the lorry was also driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the lorry dashed the auto. The same is supported by P.W.1, who is an eye witness to the accident, and P.W.1 accompanied the deceased on the date of accident. The petitioners are claiming compensation from both the insured and insurers of the two offending vehicles. 15. Ex.A.1-first information report goes to show that a report was given by the Beat Constable who was claiming to be on duty near Ayyappa Swamy Temple Junction. The said Beat Constable was examined as R.W.3. R.W.3 deposed in his evidence that he witnessed the accident and due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending auto, the accident occurred. But in cross-examination he stated that the accident occurred on the road which is of 80 ft. width with a divider and when he gave a signal, the lorry was taking its turn in the junction, and the auto driver without observing the signal given by him, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. He also stated that after the accident, the C.I., S.I. and some other constables came to the spot and the police examined him, as per the dictation of the writer, he drafted the report and presented the same in the police station at 11.20 a.m. and the lorry did not stop after the accident and he again stated that the lorry did not pass after the accident. Moreover, R.W.3 stated that he captured the lorry driver and took the lorry to the police station, but the lorry was not inspected by the M.V. Inspector. 16. A perusal of Ex.A.1 reveals that based on the report given by P.W.3, Ex.A.1-first information report was registered. Moreover, R.W.3 stated that he captured the lorry driver and took the lorry to the police station, but the lorry was not inspected by the M.V. Inspector. 16. A perusal of Ex.A.1 reveals that based on the report given by P.W.3, Ex.A.1-first information report was registered. In his report, P.W.3 stated that on the date of accident he was on duty from 8.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon as Beat Constable near Ayyappa Swamy Temple junction, then one lorry bearing No.AP 16TU 0490 was coming from Gajuwaka side to go to dockyard road and when the said lorry took its right turn and going to dockyard road, one auto bearing No.AP 31U 5951 coming from NDA Kotha road in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the lorry on its back left side and thereby, the auto driver and the person who sat beside him, died on the spot. 17. On a conjoint reading of the evidence of R.W.3 and Ex.A.1- first information report, the evidence of R.W.3 is not acceptable because it is not consistency with the contents of Ex.A.1. 18. As seen from Ex.A.2-M.V.I. report, no requisition was given by the S.H.O. concerned to inspect the said lorry. The M.V. Inspector examined only the auto and found that there were no mechanical defects in the auto at the time of accident. No statement of the lorry driver was recorded by the police or the lorry driver was attributed with any allegation, though there was negligence on his part as seen from the evidence of P.W.1. Further, the eye witness to the occurrence is the husband of P.W.1 who survived for about 10 days after the accident. Obviously, the police never tried to examine him after registering the case. 19. Therefore, on considering the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the auto and the lorry and it resulted in the death of the deceased, as such, the liability was fastened against both the vehicles. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 20. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation. As per Ex.A.7-pay slip of the deceased filed by the petitioners, the deceased is an employee in BHPV. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 20. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation. As per Ex.A.7-pay slip of the deceased filed by the petitioners, the deceased is an employee in BHPV. In fact, nobody was examined to prove the salary of the deceased. In Ex.A.7-pay slip, the net amount is shown as Rs.4,251/- and total deductions are shown as Rs.5,582.95 ps., but, the same is not proved by the petitioners. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- i.e., Rs.36,000/- p.a. The dependents on the deceased are three in number. After deducting 1/3rd from out of annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased was arrived at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-). The deceased was aged about 54 years at the time of his death and the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘11’ as per II Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. By adopting the multiplier ‘11’ for computation of loss of dependency, the Tribunal arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x multiplier ‘11’). On considering Ex.A.6- bunch of medical bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,03,500/-. Since the petitioners sought for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only, the Tribunal awarded the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners. 21. As stated supra, the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the auto and the lorry. It was held by the Tribunal that the auto was insured with the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent under Ex.A.5/Ex.B.2-policy and the policy was in force and the lorry of the 4th respondent was insured with the 5th respondent under Ex.A.4-policy and the policy was also in force. It was held by the Tribunal that the auto was insured with the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent under Ex.A.5/Ex.B.2-policy and the policy was in force and the lorry of the 4th respondent was insured with the 5th respondent under Ex.A.4-policy and the policy was also in force. It was also held by the Tribunal in its order that there are no violations in Exs.A.5/Ex.B.2 and Ex.A.4, the liability was fastened on respondent Nos.2 & 3 and respondent Nos.4 & 5, and the Tribunal directed respondent Nos.2 & 3 to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation and also directed respondent Nos.4 & 5 to deposit the remaining 50% of the compensation amount before the Tribunal. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No.10145 of 2016 dated 27.04.2018). But, the material on record in the present case shows that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the auto and the lorry, and after the accident, the lorry driver fled away with the lorry without stopping the lorry. The facts and circumstances in the cited decision are different to that of the case on hand, therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 23. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed while confirming the decree and order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in M.V.O.P.No.1349 of 2004. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.