Telangana High Court

National Insurance Company vs Uppuleti Sumalatha on 15 September, 2025

                                   1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.702 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 01.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI

Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

13.12.2015 at about 17:10 hours the deceased was going in an auto

bearing No.AP-15-W-2795 and that a Car bearing No.TS-01-EB-

3762 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the auto and both the vehicles were caught in flames

and that the inmates of the auto and car sustained burn injuries and

died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 have filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the ETD,J MACMA No.702_2021

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended that the auto driver has allowed one of the passengers to

carry a heavy petrol can which is not permissible in a passenger

auto and that the said auto was carrying more than five persons and

thus, he violated their norms, and as a result, the fire caught up in

the accident. It is further contended that the driver of the car did not

possess valid driving license, thus they are not liable to pay any

compensation.

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

following issues for consideration:-

1. "Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 of Car bearing No.TS-01-EB-3762?

2. Whether the death of Uppuleti Rajender was due to the above rash and negligent act of respondent No.1?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

4. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 & 2

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

& RW2 got examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.17,83,600/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

ETD,J MACMA No.702_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Ram Chander Rao, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company. None appeared on behalf of the

respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the

accident occurred in the opposite direction, the contributory

negligence of the auto driver has to be taken into consideration and

that the said driver of the auto has allowed one of the passengers to

carry petrol can which is not permissible. He further argued that the

driver of the car was under the impact of alcohol as disclosed from

the charge sheet. He further argued that since both the drivers were

negligent in driving the vehicles, contributory negligence has to be

fixed on the owner and insurer of the auto also.

11. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-15-W-2795 in the occurrence of the accident? If so, what would be the liability of the appellant?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the appellants is that the rash and

negligence of the auto driver has contributed to the accident, while ETD,J MACMA No.702_2021

the case of the claimants is that the accident occurred only due to

the rash and negligence of the driver of the Car bearing No.TS-01-

EB-3762.

b) PW2/Uppuleti Laxman @ Lachaiah stated that he boarded the

auto bearing No.AP-15-W-2795 driven by the deceased herein at A-

power House, Ramagundam, and the auto was proceeding to Pottial

and that when they reached the outskirts of Somanpalli Village, the

driver of the Car bearing No.TS-01-EB-3762 has driven it in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the auto in the opposite

direction, as a result of which the flames emerged and the deceased

was caught in the flames. He further deposed that the passengers of

the auto and car also sustained burn injuries. It is elicited in his cross

examination that here was no diesel or petrol tin in the auto at the

time of accident, but the passengers died when the diesel tank of

auto caught fire when it was hit by the car. He denied to have stated

before the Police that he was carrying petrol can while travelling in

the auto.

c) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A4 reveals that PW2 is

shown as LW23 and is mentioned to be the injured eye witness to

the accident, travelling in the auto of the deceased. The recitals of

the charge sheet further reveal that the driver of the car was working ETD,J MACMA No.702_2021

as the temporary bus driver and that on 13.12.2015, he was

requested by the defendant No.4 to arrange a car in order to attend

the function at Kukkalagudur and that they have consumed alcohol

and attended the function, they have consumed alcohol in the

function also, and at about 16:30 hours they have started from

Kukkalagudur to go to Mancherial and that the accused has driven

the car in a rash and negligent manner in the outskirts of Mancherial

and has hit a motor bike, but the rider of the motor bike escaped

from the accused and that the front mirror of the car got broken. On

observing the rash driving of the accused, the inmates of the car

asked the accused to give the car to LW24 for driving, but the

accused denied and has driven it in a rash and negligent manner,

and dashed the auto.

d) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that LW23 i.e., PW2

herein has boarded the auto at A-power house with a petrol can and

when it was hit by the car in a rash and negligent manner, the auto

caught up in flames, as the petrol can got broken, the petrol got

sprinkled on the car and auto.

e) Thus, the recitals of the charge sheet clearly explains the

occurrence of the accident and it is made out that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing ETD,J MACMA No.702_2021

No.TS-01-EB-3762. Further, both the vehicles were caught in

flames, as the petrol can was carried by PW2. Therefore, it is held

that there was negligence on part of the auto driver in allowing the

PW2 to carry petrol can in the auto.

f) It is pertinent to observe in this regard that it is only after the

auto was hit by the car that the petrol can broke out. Thus, rash and

negligence in the first instance is on the part of the car driven by its

driver in a drunken state at a high speed, which culminated into the

accident. Therefore, major part of rash and negligence is on behalf

of the car driver . Hence, it is held that the contributory negligence on

part of the car driver is fixed at 80%, while on the auto driver, it is

fixed at 20%. The owner and insurer of the car are liable to pay 80%

of the compensation, while the owner and insurer of the auto are

liable to pay 20% of the compensation. Therefore, the appellant-

Insurance Company is held to be liable to pay 80% compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:-

The order and decree of the tribunal needs to be modified to

the extent of liability fixed on the respondents. The tribunal has held

that the total compensation has to be paid by the respondent Nos.1

to 3 jointly and severally, while this Court has held them liable to pay

80% of the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.702_2021

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and

Decree dated 01.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District

Judge, Godavarikhani, with regard to the liability fixed on the

Insurance Company. It is held that 80% liability is fixed on the

respondent No.3 who are the appellants herein and that the

appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit 80% of the

compensation that is awarded by the tribunal. No costs.