Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Avula Aruna And 6 Others on 6 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
M.A.C.M.A.No.241 OF 2011
Between:
United India Insurance Company Limited
Appellant
Vs.
Avula Aruna and six others
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
2
MGP,J
MACMA.No.241 of 2011
* THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.241 OF 2011
% 06.02.2025
# Between:
United India Insurance Company Limited
Appellant
Vs.
Avula Aruna and six others
Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri AVKS Prasad
^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms. K. Udayasri
Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthireddy
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred :
(2015) 9 SCC 273
3
MGP,J
MACMA.No.241 of 2011
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.241 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 28.12.2007
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -
cum - VI Additional Chief Judge (III FTC), Warangal at
Mahabubabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in
M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2003, the appellant herein who is the
respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal filed the present
Appeal seeking appropriate apportionment of compensation
among all the respondents before the learned Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are that the petitioners, who are wife and parents of
"Mr.Yellaiah" (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased'), have
filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-
from the respondent Nos.1 to 5 for the death of the deceased in
the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.10.2002.
MGP,J
4. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the
deceased are that on 14.10.2002 the deceased boarded an auto
and reached near Chinnavangara Village; in the meantime, one
APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 2812 and a Jeep
bearing registration No.AP 36 U 4995, were coming in the
opposite direction; the driver of jeep tried to overtake the RTC
bus and in the process it dashed the auto on the right side and
as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries; the
deceased was shifted to Dr. Rajender Reddy's Hospital at
Thorrur but he was advised to be shifted to Warangal and in the
process of shifting him to Warangal, he succumbed to injuries
on the way.
5. The petitioners have filed the claim petition against the
respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are owner and insurer of jeep as
well as owners of the auto respectively. Except the respondent
No.5, all the respondents have filed their respective counters
denying the claim of the petitioners.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the first petitioner was
examined as PW1 apart from examining an eyewitness to the
accident as PW2; the petitioners relied upon documentary
evidence under EXs.A1 to A4 i.e., FIR, inquest, PME report and
MGP,J
charge sheet respectively. On the other hand, on behalf of
respondent No.2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and on behalf of
respondent No.3, RWs 3 and 4 were examined. Ex.B1 copy of
insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent No.2. The
learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions,
awarded compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- to the petitioners
making all the respondents to pay the compensation amount.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2/ Insurance
Company of the jeep preferred the present Appeal with a prayer
to make the appointment of the amount in proportion to the
involvement of the vehicles in causing the accident.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record including the
grounds of Appeal.
8. The undisputed facts are that there is no dispute with
regard to the manner of the accident. There is no dispute with
regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal as the petitioners/claimants have not preferred any
Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. The owners
of the auto have also not challenged the impugned order on any
of the aspects. There is also no dispute with regard to the
MGP,J
subsistence of the insurance policy at the time of accident as
evident from Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy.
9. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 alleged to be
the original owner of the auto bearing No.AP 36 U 242 but the
contention of the respondent No.3 is that he sold the said auto
to respondent No.4, who in turn alleged to have sold the said
auto to respondent No.5 prior to the accident. In this regard,
the respondent No.3 examined himself as RW3 apart from
examining RW4, who is alleged to be the attestor of sale deed,
dated 28.12.1999 through which respondent No.3 claiming to
have sold the auto to respondent No.4. But since registration
certificate was not filed, the learned Tribunal did not consider
the evidence of RWs 3 and 4 and in the absence of any proof as
to who is the actual owner arrived to a conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
drivers of auto and jeep. It is pertinent to note that the
respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not preferred any appeal against the
impugned order challenging the liability imposed by the learned
Tribunal against them.
10. The only contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 is that once the learned Tribunal came to the
MGP,J
final conclusion that both the drivers of auto and jeep were
negligent and responsible for the occurrence of the accident, the
learned Tribunal ought to have apportioned the amount at 50%
on the insured and insurer of the jeep and rest at 50% on
respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are the owners of the auto.
11. As can be seen from Ex.A4 charge sheet, the investigating
agency arraigned the drivers of jeep as well as auto as accused
by arriving to a conclusion that they both committed an offence
under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is mentioned
in Ex.A4 that the driver of the auto allowed the deceased to sit
on his right side on the driver's seat and whereas the driver of
jeep while following the APSRTC bus in the same direction the
bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed and overtook
the bus and thereby hit the deceased, who sat by the right side
of Accused No.2 on the driver seat. Even the learned Tribunal
observed at page No.12 paragraph No.32 of the impugned order
that it is the primary obligation on the part of owner and driver
of auto to ensure the safety of the passengers while he was
carrying the passengers in the auto. But unfortunately the
learned Tribunal imposed the liability of payment of
compensation on all the respondents without apportioning the
quantum of liability on each of the respondents specifically on
MGP,J
the ground that accurate apportionment of liability may not be
possible.
12. Having regard to the findings in Ex.A4 charge sheet and
the observations of the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the
accident occurred due to the composite negligence of both the
auto driver and the jeep driver. The principle of composite
negligence mandates that when two or more persons are
responsible for causing an accident, the liability may be joint
and several, allowing the claimants to recover the entire
compensation from either of the tortfeasors. However, inter se
liability between the respondents should be apportioned based
on the degree of negligence of each vehicle involved.
13. In the instant case, Ex.A4 charge sheet clearly attributes
negligence to the drivers of both jeep and the auto. The auto
driver allowed the deceased to sit in a risky position, while the
jeep driver overtook the APSRTC bus in a rash and negligent
manner, leading to the accident. The learned Tribunal, despite
discussing these aspects in the impugned order, failed to
apportion the specific liability percentages among the
respondents. It is settled principle of law that in cases where
multiple vehicles contribute to an accident, the Tribunal must
MGP,J
make reasonable efforts to assess the degree of fault and
apportion liability accordingly. The Honourable Supreme Court
in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited 1 held
that in cases of composite negligence, the claimants have the
right to recover the entire compensation from any one of the
tortfeasors, but apportionment of liability between the
tortfeasors must be based on the degree of negligence. In the
case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue
both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire
compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.
In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between two tortfeasors vis a vis the claimant is
not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages
from any of them. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been
impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the Tribunal
to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the
drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their
inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other
after making whole of payment to the claimant to the extent it
has satisfied the liability of the other. In case, both of them have
(2015) 9 SCC 273
MGP,J
been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their
negligence has been determined by the Tribunal, one joint
tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.
14. It is to be seen that the passengers cannot occupy or
share the seat of driver as it would not be convenient to drive
the vehicle in a proper manner. Had the driver of the auto did
not allow the deceased to sit in the driver cabin i.e., front side,
the deceased would not have met with an accident. Had the
driver of the jeep been cautious and careful while overtaking the
bus, the accident would not have occurred. As stated supra,
there is no dispute that the accident occurred due to the
negligent act of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., jeep as well
as auto. Thus, the insurers and owners of both the vehicles are
equally responsible for the occurrence of the accident.
15. Considering the circumstances of the present case and
the findings in Ex.A4, it is just and reasonable to apportion
liability equally between the owners and insurers of the jeep and
the auto and thereby 50% of the awarded compensation shall be
borne by the respondent No.2 (insurer of the jeep) and the
remaining 50% shall be borne by the respondent Nos.3 to 5
(owners of the auto).
MGP,J
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances and since
the petitioners have arraigned the owners and insurers of both
the crime vehicles involved in the accident to the case and in
view of availability ample evidence before the learned Tribunal
to give a finding as to the apportionment of the liability among
the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the
learned Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability among
the respondents rather than leaving aside the apportionment
merely by saying that accurate apportionment of liability may
not be possible. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be
modified only to the extent of apportionment of liability among
the respondents so far as payment of compensation to the
petitioners is concerned.
17. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed, and the impugned
order is modified to the extent of apportioning 50% of the
liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2 (owner and insurer of
the jeep) and apportioning remaining 50% of the liability against
respondent Nos.3 to 5 (owners of the auto). The respondents
are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation
amount of Rs.2,89,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal
within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. On such deposit the petitioners/claimants are
MGP,J
entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them in the
proportion as stated in the impugned order without furnishing
any security. The petitioners/claimants are entitled to recover
the compensation jointly and severally from any of the
respondents as per their choice. The remaining terms of the
impugned order shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 06.02.2025
AS
