The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.11O8 of 2Ol4 : JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.03.20l3 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short "the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No.BB9 of 20 10, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2-The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in this appeal.

3. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Rar,.r.rlapati, learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Brief facts of case:

4.t On 05.08.20 10 the deceased Bochu Komuramma, Koyyada Rajeshwar and some others were returning to their village in an auto rickshaw bearing No. Ap 36 U 9275 in the evening hours and when the said auto reached Narsakkapally bus stage, one tractor Do-jar bearing No. Ap.23. G.T216 being driven by its clriver came in a rash and negligent manner at 2 high speed from the opposite direction and dashed the auto. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, Koyyada Rajeshwar and the driver of the auto died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the deceased Komuramma was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal and while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on

09.08.2O10 at about 3-OO p.m.

4.2 On complaint, the Police, Parkal registered a case in Crime No. 173/20IO lor the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the time of accident, the deceased vvas aged about 48 years and working as a labourer and she used to earn Rs.6,OOOl- per month. Thus, the appellants who are the husband and son of the deceased have filed M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2O1O claiming an amount ol Rs.6,5O,0OO/ and the Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O.P.No.889 ol 20 l0 in part and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,95,5O0/ to be pa-vable by the respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severall-r'. Hence this appeal. -) Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants:

5.1 l,earned counsel for the appellants submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor, the deceased Bochu Komuramma died on 09.O8.2O10 and the appellants have filed M.V.O.P. No.889 of 2O1O claiming an amount of Rs.6,5O,OOO/- towards compensation under various heads. To prove their claim, the appellants have liled Exs.A I to A4 documents and examined PWs. I and 2. However, the Tribunal wittrout properly considering the same passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against the tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G,7216 as well as auto bearing No.AP.36.U.9275, though the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor only.

5.2 He further submitted that in Ex.A3 charge sheet the Investigating Officer specifically stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor only. However, the Tribunal lvithout t:rking into consideratiqn- of same, passed the impugned award fixing .1 contributory negligence against both vehicles and awarded meager amount.

5.3 He further submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned award holding that since more than the permitted passengers were travelling in the auto, ftxed the contributory negligence on the said ground is not contrar5r to law' In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the erstwhile High Court Andhra Pradesh in M'Madhavi and others vs. Ch.Ananthaiah and others (M.A.C.M.A'No'229 of2OO9).

6. Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appea-red on behalf of very same Insurance Companl in M.A.C.M'A'No'2456 of 20 14 submitted that, accordit.rg to the evidence of PW' 1, twelve passengers tvvere travelling in the auto at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against both the vehicles and basing on the same, awarded compensation' Therefore, the appellants arc not entitled for enhancement of compensation. e/ 5 1 7 . Learned counsel for the appellants by way of reply submitted that the appellants are not seeking any enhancement of compensation in this appeal and he restricted the claim of only in fixing contributory negligence on the part of two vehicles. Analysis:

8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was died due to the sustained by her in the accident which n,as occurred on 09.08.20 10. Ex.A1 F.I.R. No.l73 of 2Ol0 was regisrered on 06.08.2010 for the offence under Sections 304_A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Investigation Officer after conducting detailed investigation filed Ex.A4 charge sheet on 19. 10.2010 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor Do-jar bearing No. Ap.23.C.7216, due to which, the deceased Bochu Komuramma died arrcl others have sustaineci grievous injuries. The Tribunal without taking into consideration of Exs.A I and A4, fixed the contributery. negligence on both the tractor and auto in the 1r I I 1 I I i 6 absence of any contra evidence adduced by the respondents, only on the ground that in the auto twelve passengers were travelling at the time of accident.

9. In Devisingh v. Vikramsinghl, Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court relying upon the principle laid down by the Honlcle Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh2 held that at the time of accident the rider of thi motorcycle was driving the vehicle with two pillion riders instead of one pillion rider. The Tribunal apportioned the liability between jeep driver and driver of motorcycle on the ground that the vehicle is overloading and thus fixed the liability against both the vehicles, is not permissible under 1aw.

10. In Manjo Bee vs, Sajjad Khan3, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court also held that mere overloading do not amount to contributory negligence.

11. In the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well High Court ol Madh-t'a Pradesh specilically held ' 2oos nct 393 'zooS nct t83a t 2ooi ect 'li'l -7 7 I I i : : that basing crn the overloading in the particular vehicle, the negligbnce or apportionment of the compensation and the liability will not fixed between two vehicles, especially the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle.

12. In the case on hand, Exs.Al F.I.R. and Exs.A3 charge sheet clearly proves that the accident was occurred on 05.08.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor. ln view, of the principle laid down in Devisingh (supra), Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) and Manjo Bee (supra), this Court is of the. considered view that apportioning the liabilit-y betr.,,,een tractor as well as auto is not sustainable under lau..

13. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunai <iated 30.03.2013 to the extent o[ fixing the liability against the auto is liable to be set aside and fixed the liability and negligence on the part of tractor Do_jar bearing No. AP 23 G 72t6. I I t4 In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed part and respondent Nos.1 and 2 a::e hereby directed to pay Rs.3,91,OOO/- ro the appellants along with interesr at 7 .sot, 8 p.a. from the date of petition tili the date of realization and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ate directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant No.l is entitied to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER (Warangal) 'I . The chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-principar District judge 2 One CC to SRl. SREENTVASA- EAO RAVULApATt. Advocare tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt. RAV| SHANKAn Lnruoriinu, njroc"te 1OeUtl--, 4. Two CD Copies 1 To v HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 1 STA tt q J () N6 \\[q 5$ i t)f.' s{ 7 o I .rF * JUDGMENT MACMA.No.'l 108 of 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b x# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1108 OF 2014 Between:

1. Bochu Narasaiah, S/o. Bondaiah, aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculture 2. Bochu Mogili, S/o. Narasaiah, aged about 32 years, Occ: Agriculture Both are R/o. Madathapalli (Kakarlapalli) Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal District. .APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND

1. T.De,vika, Wo. Ravinder .Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ: Agricultue and the Owner of the Crime Vehicte R/o H.No. 4-141,'seriiapaili (V)i, HuiiiaUaO Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. The Sriram General- ,lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under sectlon 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 30-03-2013 made in M A O p No. BB9 of 201b on the file of the chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims tribunal cum principal District Judge, at Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and the mateiial papers in the MVop and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, Advocate for the appellants and of sRl. Ravi shankar Jandhyala (Not present), Advocate for tre Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in part; 2. That the respondent Nos.1 and 2 be and hereby are directed to pay Rs.3,91,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety one thousand only) to the appellants along with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respondent Nos.'l and 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited; t

4. That on such deposit, the appellant No.1 be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security; //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N ECTION OFFICER To '1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District judge (Warangal) 2. Two CD Copies \ry HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 DECREE MACMA.No.I 108 of 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS W(