HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.400 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 28.02.2007, in MVOP.No.82 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.
2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.2 in the O.P. The O.P. is filed by the claimants before the Tribunal under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Srikanth Reddy in the accident occurred on 22.09.2004.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,22,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
2
GAC, J MACMA.No.400 of 2008
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident occurred due to the collusion of two vehicles, and therefore, it ought to have considered that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the 3rd respondent-vehicle i.e. hired RTC bus. It is further contended by the learned counsel that as the Bus, which was involved in the accident, is hired with the RTC, an additional premium amount has to be paid by the owners of the Bus, but the Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the Bus was hired with the RTC, the Tribunal ought to have fixed joint and several liability on all the respondents.
6. In this appeal, the dispute is not with respect to the quantum of compensation and it is only with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company. As there is no cross appeal on behalf of claimant, there is no necessity to discuss about the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
3
GAC, J MACMA.No.400 of 2008
7. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P.State Transport Corporation v. Rajenderi Devi & others1, once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
8. In view of the above proposition, though the bus was hired by the RTC, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be exonerated and it is liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are no merits in the case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed confirming the order dated 28.02.2007, in MVOP.No.82 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date:16.09.2022 ajr 1 2020 LawSuit (SC) 429