The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr; mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mzrl be pteased to stay all further proceedings in M.V.O.P. No. 20/2017 on the file rf Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Vl Addl. District Judge, {l >davarikhani dated 0110312021, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Swati Guda Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandr;l Rao The Court delivered the following i d I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.71 I OF 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the lnsurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 0,l .03.2021 in M.V.O.p.No.20 ol 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum_Vl 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 is 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.20,00,0001.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the t ident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further \ I i I I : L I lL I I i I I t. 1 h i 2 ETD,J MACMA No.718 2021 contended that the auto driver has allowed one of thr> passengers to carry a lreavy petrol can which is not permissible i a passenger auto and that the said auto was carrying more than f,r e persons and thus, he violated their norms, and as a result, the fir r caught up in the accident. It is further contended that the driver o' he car did not possess valid driving license, thus they are not lia t le to pay any compensation

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal i as framed the following issues for consideration:- 1 2 3 "Whether lhe deceased-Chiftari Madhunamna de1 due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata lndica Vista Car bo, nng N1.TS- 01-EB-3762 by respondent No.1? Whether the petitioners are entilled to claim compel ation. lf so, how much and from whom? To what relief?"

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got exami. :d PWs 1 & 2 and Exs.A'l to A7 were marked. On behalf of the resl ondents, RW1 & RW2 got examined and Ex.B1 was marked

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal tas awarded a compensation of Rs.7,03,6001. Aggrieved by the s aid order and decree, ttIACMA.No.TlB of 2021 is preferred by .he lnsurance Company 3 ETD,J MACMA No.718 2021 B. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Ram Chander Rao, learned counsel for the lnsurance company. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. o 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 ailowed one of the passengers to carry petrol can which is not permissibre. 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.

10. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1 3 Whether there is any contributory negtigence on paft of the driver of the auto bearing No.Ap-1 S-W-r7gO in the o.ccurrence of the accident? lf so, what would be the tiability of the appellant? Whether the order and decree of the Tibunal need any inteierence? To what relief? 11 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 i 4 ETD,J lACMA No.718-2021 the case of the claimants is that the accident occurre j only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Car bear rg No.TS-01- EB-3762 b) PW2/Uppuleti Laxman @ Lachaiah stated that I : boarded the auto bearing No.AP-'15-W-2795 driven by the decease I herein at A- power House, Ramagundam, and the auto was procee ding to Pottial and that when they reached the outskirts of Somanpz lli Village, the driver of the Car bearing No.TS-01-EB-3762 has drilt n it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto i r the opposite direction, as a result of which the ftames emerged an r the deceased was caught in the flames. He further deposed that ther :assengers of the auto and car also sustained burn injuries. lt is elic I -'d in his cross examination that here was no diesel or petrol tin in t re auto at the time of accident, but the passengers died when ther diesel tank of auto caught fire when it was hit by the car. He denierl io have stated before the Police that he was carrying petrol can wlt le travelling in the auto. c) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A2 rev<: rls that PW2 is shown as LW23 and is mentioned to be the injured lye witness to the accident, travelling in the auto of the deceased. I-he recitals of the charge sheet further reveal that the driver of the t; rr was working 5 ETD,J MACMA N0.718 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, and 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) lt 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 drivin \ g of the Car bearing I ) I i I 6 ETD,] IACMA No.718 2021 No.TS-01-E8-3762. Furlher, both the vehicles wr) e caught in flames, as the petrol can was carried by PW2. Thert: ore, it is held that there was negligence on part of the auto driver i r allowing the PW2 to carry petrol can irr the auto. lt is pertinent to observe in this regard that it ir; 0 auto was hit by the car that the petrol can broke out I negligence in the first instance is on the part of the c€ only after the 1us. rash and ' driven by its driver in a drunken state at a high speed, which culnt rated into the accident. Therefore, major part of rash and negligenc : is on behalf of the car driver. Hence, it is held that the contributonr regligence on part of the car driver is fixed at 80%, while on the ert to driver, it is fixed at 2OVo. The owner and insurer of the car are lia I le to pay 80% of the compensation, while the owner and insurer ,l the auto are liable to pay 20% of the compettsation. Therefore, :he appellant- lnsurance Company is held to be liable to pay 80% cc,t l pensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.2:- The order and decree of the tribunal needs tc le modified to the extent of liability fixed on the respondents. The tt'i runal has held that the total compensation has to be paid by the rer; rondent Nos.1 7 ETD,J MACMA No.718_2021 to 3 joinfly and severally, while this Court has held them liable to pay 80% of the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.3:- ln the result, appeal is parfly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 01.03.2021 in |V.V.O.p.No.20 ot 2017 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-Vr Additionar District Judge, Godavarikhani, with regard to the tiability fixed on the lnsurance company. rt is herd that B0o/o riability is fixed on the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are the appellants herein, and that the appellant-lnsurance Company is directed to deposit B0% of the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 The chairman Motor Veh,icre Accidents craims Tribunar -cum -Vr Additionar District Judge, codavarikhani. (Witn recorJsj 2. One CC to Sri. Swati Guda, Advocate 1OeUC1 3. One CC to Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandra Rao, Advocate [opUC] 4. Two CD Copies - ' '"""' DL o I l i I I I L 1I l1 I t Te r: cl. ?7 rE8 2020 I t I v-. ..:'., .r- i, . /.t HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.718 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL 0l 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 718 OF 2021 Between: National lnsurance Company, Manager, 1st Floor,2-6-103, Karimnagar Diskict. Karimnagar Division, Rep. by its Divisional Near Municipal Office, Karimnagar Town, .Petitioner/Respondent No. 3 AND 1 2 3 Chittari Narayana, S/o. Chantaiah, Aged 67 years, Occ. Coolie, Rl/o. Potyala Village of Anthergaon Mandal, of Peddapalli District. Chittai Mallesham, S/o. Chantaiah,Aged 44 yearc, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Potyala Village of Anthergaon Mandal, of Peddapalli District Chittari Thirupathi, S/o. Narayana Aged 40 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Potyala Village of Anthergaon lrr'landal, of Peddapalli Diskict ... Respondents/Petitioners

4. Chippa Harish, S/o. Gattaiah, Aged about 24 yea$, Occ. Driver of the car Tatalndica Vista bearing No. T.S. 01-EB-3762, Rl/o. H.No. 28-2-9, Gandhinagar, Locality of Bellampalli Town and Mandal of Adilabad District. 5. T. Karthik, S/o. Komuraaih, Aged an adult Occ. Owner of the Car Tala lndica Vista bearing T.S. 01-EB-3762 R/o. H.No. 1-2-62, Kannaia Basthi locality of Bellampalli Townand Mandal of Adilabad District. ,..Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of [/.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 0110312021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.20 ot 2017 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani. 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 E t;ll the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. Swati Gr ia, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandra Rao, Advocate fc r the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneou:; Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed, modifying the order rnd decree dated 01 .03.2021 in M V.O.P. No. 20 of 017 passer by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vi Addit tnal District Jude, Godavarikhani, with regard to the liability fixer on the lnsurance Company;

2. fhat it is held that B0% liability is fixed on ther -espondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are the appellants herein, and t rat the appellant- lnsurance Company is directed to deposit B) /oof compensation that is awarded by the tribunal;

3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the T- )unal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this a lpeal. Sd/. ]iI JAWAHAR REDDY ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunz I -cum -VI Additional 2. Two CD Copies District Judge, Godavarikhani. DL o, HIGH COURT DATED:15/09i2025 DECREE MACMA.No.718 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL or)zL l4,r( j > 1,