The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : - - - The Court delivered the following: Judgment TIrE HON'BLE SRI JTTSTICE J. SREENI\/AS RAO M.A.C .M.A. No.I110 of 20L4 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award and decree dated t8.o2.2013 passed by the learned Chairmarr, Motor Tribunal-currr-IV Additional District Judge (for short the TribunalJ in M.V.O.p. present appeal is filed by the claimant. Accident Claims (FTC), Warangal No.68O of 2O'.t,

2. No repr.esentation on behalf of respondent Nc.2_The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in this appeal J Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, lezrrned c(tunsel for the appellant.

4. Brief facts of case: 4.1 On O5.O8.2OlO while the appellant was proceedinll with some others in al auto rickshaw bearing No. Ap 36 tJ g27S near Narsakkapally village on Huzurabad main road, at itbout 8-30 p.m., one tractor Do-jar bearing No. Ap.23.t) 72L6 being driven by its d.river came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed frorn the opposite direction and dashed the auto. I I I I t 1 l .1 2 Due to which, two passengers of the auto died on the spot and the appellant and others have sustained grievous lmmediately after the accident, the injured were injuries. shifted to the hospital for treatment'

4.2 On complaint, the Police, Parkal registered a case in Crime No.173 /2OlO for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860' At the time of accident' the appeUant was aged aborx 22 years and working as coolie and sheusedtoearnRs.6,OO0/-permonth'Thus'theappellant has filed M.V.O.P.No.68O of 2o11 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,O0,OOO/ and the Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O.P.No.680 of 2O11 in part and awarded an amount of Rs.11,250/- to be payable by the respondent Nos'I and 2 jointly and severally. Hence this appeal' Submissions of the learned counsel for the ap ellant:

5.1 Iearned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor' the appellant has O9.OB.2O10 and she has frled sustained grievous injuries on M.V.O.P. No.679 of 2O1l Rs. 1,00,00O/- towards compensation under various heads' To claiming an amolrnt of 3 prove her claim, the appellant has filed Exs.A 1 to A3 documents and examined herself as PW.l. However, the Tribunal without properly considering the same pasrsed the impugned aw'ard fixing contributory negligence agalnst the tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G.7216 as well ils auto bearing No.AP.36.U.9275, though the accident was cccurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver- of the tractor only.

5.2 He further submitted that in Ex.A3 charge sl-Leet the Investigating tlfficer specifically stated that the accidr:nt was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the clriver of tractor on1y. However, the Tribunal without taki.rg into consideration of same, passed the impugned awarrl fixing contributory negligence against both vehicles and a warded meager am ollrlt.

5.3 He lurttrer submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned award holding that since more than the permitted passengers rx,ere travelling in the auto, fixed the contributory negligence on the said ground is not contrar5z to laLvr,. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the i J I 4 erstwhile High Court Andhra pradesh ln M.Madhavi and others vs. Ch.Ananthaiah and others (M.A.C.M.A.No.229 of 2OO9l. 1-\

6. Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appeared on behalf of very same Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2456 of 2O 14 submitted that, according to the evidence of pW. I , twelve passengers were travelling in the auto at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against both tl.e vehicles and basing on the same, awarded compensation. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant by way of reply submitted that the appellant is not seeking any enhancement of compensation in this appear and she 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 5 undisputed frrct that the appellant has sustained in:uries in the accident rvhich was occurred on O9.Og.2Ol0. Ex.l\1 F.LR. No.l73 of 20 l0 was registered on O6.Og.2OlO for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian penal Code, lg60 and the Investigation Officer after conducting detailed investigation 1lled Ex.A3 charge sheet on 19.10.2010 wherein it was specilically mentioned that the accident was occurred due to the rrlsh and negligent driving of the driver of tractor Do-jar bearirrp; No. Ap.23.G.2216, due to which, the appellant has sustaine:d injuries and others have sustained grievous injuries and two persons were died on the spot. The Tribuna-l without takirrg; into consideration of Exs.Al and A3, fi.red the contributorv negrigence on both the tractor a.d auto in the absence of an-.,r contra evidence adduced by the respondents onll', on the ground that in the auto twelve passenger.s were travelling at t.h,: time of accident.

9. [n Devisingh v. Vikramsinghr, Full Bench of Ntadhya Pradesh High {Jourt relying upon the principle taid dc,wn by the Honble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kurnar Ra.na v ' l0o8 ,,rct jg.t I i I ! I 6 Surinder Singhz held that at the time of accident the rider of the 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 law. lO. In Manjo Bee vs. Sajiad Khan3, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court also held that mere overloading do not amount to contributory negligence. 1 1 . In the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as wett High Court of Madhya Pradesh specihca-lly held that basing on the overloading in the particular vehicle, the negligence 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. ' 2oo8 AcJ 1834 ' 2ooi AcJ 13i a-' 7

12. In the case on hand, Exs.Al F.I.R. and Exs.A3 charge sheet cleallr/ proves that the accident was occtrrred on

05.O8.2Of 0 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor. In view of 1.he principle laid down in Devisingh (supra), Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) and Manjo Bee (supra), this Court is of the considered view that apportioning the: liability between tractor as well as auto is not sustainable under law. d

13. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree peLssed by the TribuneLl dated 18.02.2013 to the extent of fu<ing the liability against the auto is liable to be set aside and lixed the liabilitv zrnd negligence on the part of tractor Do_jar bearing No. AP 23 G 7216.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part and respondent l\,los. I and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.22,5OO/- 1o the appellants along with interest at Z Syo p.a. from the d:ite of petition tilt the date of realization and respondent I'los. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compenszrtron amount u,ith accrued interest within a period of t\^,o months litm the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after dedr-rcti;xg the amount if any already deposited. C)n such 8 deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without fumishing any securit5r. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ASSISTANT REGI ISMAIL, STRAR. SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Ae,"id-ent Claims Tribunal-cum_ tV Additional District Judse (Fast Track Courr), W"r;rg;l;iil"r"1,"ilt'ii rrvf 2 one cc ro sri Sreenivasa F. nlrirprii, oi"r.i"il'forraf 9 9"" 99 to sri N Mohan xri"r,r",'eorI[rid fr;ili]'" 4. Two CD Copies ADK % i HIGH COURT DATED:02 t011ZO2S I t J I i i I l i : I I t i JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.111O of 2014 I I -r tlE j l4i 6 .+ 2s tEB zffi ,:. .) ). ! ..- 2 DRAFTS PARTLY ALLOWTNG THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS o\ )}r V IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO T+IOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1'110 OF 2914 Between: lngula Shantha @ Shyamala, Wo Mogili, Rl/o Maripalligudem. -Village of Ka-malapur Mandal, KJLrimnagar District, Presently reskling at Kakarlapalli Village of Regonda Mandal, Warangal District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND

1. T.Devika, Wo Ravinder Reddy, Occ: Agriculture and the owner of the Crirne Vehicle, Fl/o H.No.4-141, Serbapalli (V) Huzarabad ltlandal, Karimnagar District.

2. The Sriram General lnsurance Co.Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager' Jaipur, Rajasthan 3O2O22. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.68O of 201 1 daled.18lO2l2O'1 3 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N Mohan Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent I'l'o.2 (M representation) and none appeared for the respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the lritotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly albwed:

2. That the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.22,5001 to the appellants atong with interest at 7 -syo p.a. from the date of petition till tte date of realization;

3. That the rc'spondent Nos.1 and 2 are d irected 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;

4. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furrrishing any security; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// ( SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal

2. fwo CD C,rpies ADK @) HIGH COURT DATED:021A112025 t DECREE MACMA.No.1110 of 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ ,d !D