The vs Additional District Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3603 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.708 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the third respondent in M.V.O.P.No.753 of

2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I

Additional District Judge, Kurnool and the respondents are the

petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in the said case.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying

the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of deceased Harijana Nagamma

in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 19.12.2001.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 19.12.2001 at about 15.15 hours in between Kondumuru

and Yemmiganur, the deceased and others boarded an auto

bearing No.AP 9V 2096 which belongs to second respondent and

VGKR, J MACMA No.708 of 2012

insured with third respondent and when the said auto crossed

Vemugodu village, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2593 came

from Yemmiganur side in a rash and negligent manner in high

speed and dashed against the auto, resulting which the deceased

and inmates of the auto received grievous injuries, later the

deceased succumbed to injuries and the petitioners claimed an

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The second respondent remained exparte. The first and third

respondents filed counters separately by denying the claim of the

claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any

compensation and the first and third respondents are not liable to

pay any compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident dated 19.12.2001 occurred due to collusion between auto bearing No.AP 9V 2096 and APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 593? ii. Whether the accident dated 19.12.2001 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus

VGKR, J MACMA No.708 of 2012

bearing No.AP 11Z 593, resulting in death of Harijana Nagamma?

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation and if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

iv. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5

were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

has given a finding that because of rash and negligent driving of

both the drivers i.e., bus driver and auto driver, the accident was

occurred and the Tribunal came to conclusion that the negligence of

driver of RTC bus is arrived at 75% and the negligence of driver of

auto is arrived at 25% and the Tribunal granted an amount of

Rs.1,60,000/- to the claimants towards total compensation.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

VGKR, J MACMA No.708 of 2012

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

      Whether     the   Order      of   Tribunal   needs    any
      interference, if so, to what extent?

11.   POINT :-

On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal

came to conclusion that the RTC bus and auto caused the accident

and the negligence of driver of RTC bus is arrived at 75% and the

negligence of driver of auto is arrived at 25% and the Tribunal

directed the first respondent/APSRTC to pay compensation of 75%,

and directed the respondents No.2 and 3 i.e., owner of auto and its

Insurance Company to pay compensation of remaining 25% of

compensation to the petitioners.

12. Though the counsel for appellant has taken several grounds in

the grounds of appeal, he confined his arguments, during the course

of arguments before this Court, with regard to the apportionment of

the liability fixed on the appellant/ Insurance Company. The

quantum awarded by the Tribunal is not at all disputed by the

appellant/ Insurance Company.

VGKR, J MACMA No.708 of 2012

13. The appellant is disputing the liability of 25% fixed on the

appellant/ Insurance Company i.e., third respondent in the claim

application. The counsel for appellant would submit that their

liability is only for six cases as per Ex.B1 policy and Insurance

Company paid the apportionment of 20% in six cases as per the

orders of composite High Court dated 24.06.2010 in C.M.A.Nos.915

of 2004 and batch. I have perused the copy of order of composite

High Court placed on record. In the said order, the composite High

Court held that "the liability of appellant/ Insurance Company is in

respect of six cases only as per policy and in other cases, the owner

of the auto is liable to pay the compensation of liability fixed on the

Insurance Company, because the Insurance Company is not liable

in view of the condition of the policy". The owner of the auto is a

party in the above appeals before the composite High Court. For

the foregoing reasons, the appellant/ Insurance Company is not

liable to pay the compensation of 25% as fixed by the Tribunal, but

second respondent/ owner of the auto in claim application is liable to

pay the said 25% of the compensation fixed by the Tribunal. With

these above observations, this appeal is allowed.

VGKR, J MACMA No.708 of 2012

14. In the result, this appeal is allowed, modifying the order dated

09.09.2011 passed in MVOP No.753/2006 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

The first respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit 75% of total

compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest as ordered by the

Tribunal and the owner of the auto/ second respondent in claim

application alone is directed to deposit the remaining 25% of total

compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest as ordered by the

Tribunal, within two months from the date of this judgment, before

the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw

the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. The award

of Tribunal in all other aspects regarding apportionment of amount in

between the petitioners shall stand confirmed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 21.07.2023.

sj

VGKR, J MACMA No.708 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.708 of 2012

21.07.2023

sj