The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 18.02.2O13 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge (FTC), Wzrrangal (for short the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P. No.4OO of 20 11, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

2. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2 The

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in this appeal.

3. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Brief facts of case:

4.1 On O5.08.2O1O while the appellant was proceeding with some others irr an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 36 U 9275 near Narsakkapally village on Huzurabad main road, at about 8-30 p.m., one tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G 7216 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from the opposite direction and dashed the auto. 1 Due to which, two passengers of the auto died on the spot and the appellant and others have sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the injured were 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 3O4-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 186O. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 50 years and working as coolie and she used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, the appellant has filed M.V.O.P.No.40O of 2011 claiming an amount of Rs.6O,O00/ and the Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O'P'No'4OO of 2OI1 in part and awarded an amount of Rs. 11,000/- to be payable by the respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severa-lly' Hence this appeal. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:

5. 1 kamed counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries on 09.08.2O 10 and he has filed M.V.O.P. No.4O0 of 2011 claiming an amount ol Rs'6O,000/- towards compensation under various heads. To prove his claim, r- "/ i I : 3 the appellant has filed Exs.Al to A4 documents and examined himself as PW. 1. However, the Tribunal without 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 lnvestigating Officer specifically stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor only. I{owever, the Tribunal without taking into consideration of same, passed the impugned au,ard lixing contributon' negligence against both vehicles and awarded meager amount

5.3 He furttrer submitted that the Tribunat passed the impugned ar.,"'ard holding that since more than the permitted passengers were travelling in the auto, fixed the contributory negligence on the said ground is not contrary to law. tn support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the ersnvhile High Court Andhra Pradesh in M.Madhavi and \ 4 others vs. Ch.Ananthaiah and others (M'A'C'M'A'No'229 of 2OO9l.

6. Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Iearned counsel appeared on behalf of very szune Insurance Company in M'A'C'M'A'No'2456 ol 2Ol4 submitted that, according to the evidence of PW' 1' 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 the 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 lr'ay of reply submitted that the appellant is 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' lt is an undisputed fact that the appellant has sustained injuries in the accident which was occurred on O9.08.2010' Ex'Al F'l'R' No'173 of 2O 10 was registered on 06'08.201O for the offence under -" ,/ 7 ) Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Pena-l Code, 1860 and the Investigation Officer after conducting detailed investigation filed Ex.A3 charge sheet on 19.10.2010 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent drrr ing ol the driver of tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G.7216. due to which, the appellant and others have suStained grir'vous injuries ald two persons were died on the spot. The Tribunal without taking into consideration of Exs.A1 and A3, fixed the contributory negligence on both the tractor and auto in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the respondents onlv, on the ground that in the auto twelve passengers u e re travelling at the time of accident.

9. In Devisingh v. Vikramsinght, Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Jotrrt relying upon the principle laid dorvn by the Hontrle Suprcrnc Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singhz held rhat at the time of accident the rider of the motorcvcle \\'.IS driving the vehicle with two pillion riders instead of one pillion rider. The Tribunal apportioned the liabilitl, betvcrrn jeep driver and driver of motorcycle on the '2008 ncJ tqj -- ..- ' zoo8 ect I 8 r-r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t i i 6 ground that the vehicle is overloading and thus fixed the liabitity against both the vehicles, is not permissible under law'

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 of Madhya Pradesh specifically held that basing on the overloading in the pa-rticular vehicle, the negligence or apportionment of the compensation and the liability will not lixed between two vehicles, especiaily the accident u,as occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle. In the case on hand, Exs.Al F.I'R' and Exs'A3 charge 12. sheet clearly proves that the accident was occurred on 05.08.20 lO due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor' In vier.r' 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 liability betu'een tractor as lvell as auto is not sustainable under iar"'- 12007 AcJ 7i7 l I I J I 1

13. Hence, l.he impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal dated 18.02.2013 to the extent of fixing the liability against the auto is iiable to be set aside and fixed the liability and negligence on the part of tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP 23 G 72t6. L4. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part and respondent Ncis. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.22,OOO/- to the appellants along with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till thc date of realization and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest rvithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copv ol this judgment after deducting the amount if any alreadl, <leposited. On such deposit, the appellant IS entitled to withdrarv the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs Miscellaneorrs petitions, il any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// STI,- P PADMANABHA REDDY --' ilSisfarli REGISTRAR / ^/V SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 The Chairman Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV Additional gxi'E:i,:,d'sui'.He..f lP,ilS1H^L:U!'Jryry,Advocateropucr 5.# 6E i" s"ni r.r nrbHAN KRIsHNA, Advocate [oPUC] . Two CD CoP,es \r HIGH COURT DATED: 02,t0112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1113 of 2014 e orr- 1HE S'I4 6 \2" \ 0 5 tilAn ztE l r::,,.., .- t r -lit t, i t I i I I I I I I I ! I I f I i I ; ? I I t ! , t I I I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (* t LL- 6cc,Pit>, I I 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 : 1113 0F 2014 Between: Sadiram Bixapathy, S/o. Pochaiah, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Kotancha Village, Regonda Mandal, WararEal District. ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND

1. T.Devika, Wo. Ravindar Reddy, Occ, Agriculture and the owner of the Crirne Vehicle R/o. H.No. 4-141, Sericapalli (V), Huzarabad Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. The Sriram General lnsurance Co. Pochamma Maidan, Warangal. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree passed in MVOP No. 400 of 2011 dated 18-02-20'13, on the file of tfie Court of the Chairman Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV Additional District Judge, at Warangal. This appeal mming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRL SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI, Advocate for the appeallant and of SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA (NA), Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part and respondents Nos 1 and 2 be and hereby are d irected to pay .1 /' To Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand onty) to the appellants along with interest at 7 .5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgmenl after deducting the amount if any already deposited;

3. That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGFTRAR -1 \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV Additional 2. Two CD Copies District Judge, at Warangal HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 DECREE MACMA.No.'1113 ot 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (*- 1;fl.,,1 \coy*>'