The High Court · 2025

The Sriram General lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Pochammam [,1aidan, Warangal- ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Sri K Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - - - The Court delivered the following: Judgment n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2456 of 2Ol4 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment arrd decree dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short the TribunalJ in M.V.O.P. No.888 of 2OlO, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. In spite of service of notice, respondents have not chosen to enter their appearance. Hence, this Court is appointed Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel, who hled vakalath on behalf of The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in M.A.C.M.A. No. I 109 of 2014. which arises out of the very same accident, to appear on behalf of respondent No.2-The Shriram General [nsurance Company Limited, in this appeal.

3. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravr-rlapati, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company Limited 2 4 4 Brief facts of case: 1 On 05.08.20 10 the deceased-Koyyada Rajeshwar, Inugala Shantha, Bochu Komuramma 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.7216 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from the opposite direction and dashed the auto. Due to which, the deceased and the driver of the auto died on the spot and two occupants of the auto succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment and the remaining occupants of the auto have sustained multiple grievous injuries and they were shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal.

4.2 On complaint, the Police, Parkal registered a case ln Crime No.173l2OlO for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years and doing agriculture and he used to raise commercial crops like cotton, mirchi, pulses etc. and used to earn Rs.2,00,O00/ per annurn. Thus, tJle appellants who are the w,ife, sons and daughter of the 3 deceased have filed M.V.O.P.No.888 of 2OlO claiming an amount of Rs.6,50,000/ and the Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O.P.No.888 of 2010 in part and awarded an amount of Rs.1,95,500/- to be payable by the respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally. Hence this appeal. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants:

5.1 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor, the deceased Koyyada Rajeshwar died on 05.08.2010 and the appellants have filed M.V.O.P. No.888 of 2O10 claiming an arnount of Rs.6,50,OOO/- towards compensation under various heads. To prove their claim, the appellants have filed Exs.Al to A4 documents and examined PWs. I and 2. However, the Tribunal without properly considering the same passed the impugned award hxing 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 lurther submitted that in Ex.A3 charge sheet the Investigating Officer specifically stated that the accident nas 4 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor only. However, the Tribunal without taking into consideration of same, passed the impugned award fixing c.ontributory 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, hxed 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 ol 2@91. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent no.2:

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that according to the evidence of PW. l, twelve passengers were travelling in the auto at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightty passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against both the vehicles and /-\ 5 basing on the same, awarded compensation. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation. I I 7 . Learned counsel for the appellant 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 hxing 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 in the accident which w,as occurred on 05.08.2010. Ex.Al F.l.R. No.l73 of 2010 rvas registered on 06.08.2010 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian penal Code, lg6O and the lnvestigation Officer after conducting detailed investigation filed Ex,A3 charge sheet on 19.1O.2O10 wherein it was specilically mentioned that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor Do_jar bearing No. AP.23.G.7216, due to which, the deceased Kolryada Rajeshwar died and others have sustained grievous 6 --a:= injuries. The Tribunal without taking into consideration of Exs.Al and A3, fixed ttre contributory negligence on both the tractor and auto in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the respondents, only on the ground that in the auto twelve passengers were travelling at the tirne of accident.

9. In Devisingh v. Vikramsinght, Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v 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 Tribuna-l 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

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 ' 2oo8 AcJ 393 t 2oo8 nc: tt3l ' zoot acl n'l ! j i , I I i i a 7 I l. In the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well High Court of Madhya Pradesh specilically held that basing on the overloading in the pa-rticular vehicie, the negligence or apportionment of the compensation and the Iiability will not flxed between two vehicles, especially the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle.

12. [n 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. In 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 liability between tractor as u'ell as auto is not sustainable under law.

13. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal dated 30.O3.20 13 to the extent of fixing the liability against the auto are liable to be set aside and fixed the liability and negligence on the part of tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP 23 G 72t6. ( ( 8

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part and respondent Nos.I and 2 are hereby directed to pay RS.3,91,(X)O/- to the appellants along with interest at 2.5%o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and respondent Nos. I and 2 are 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 appellants are entitled to withdraw, the said amount without furnishing any security in the ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. /,TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL' ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. S CTION OFFICER To, ,i at Warangal ( With records, if anY) l.TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-Princ'palDistrictJudge' z. on" CC t6 Sri Sreenivasa iao Rivulapati' Advocate IOPUC] 5 o;; cc to sri K Aiav Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK eA I HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 \ I JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.N o.2456 of 2014 .,. l'':\- ::- il1i4i\il 2025 \;. -). \i i'l PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT€ OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURAALE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2456 OF 2014 Between:

1. Koyya Radha, Wo Late Rajeshwar, Occ -Household, R/o (Kakarlapalli) Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal Dist.

2. Koyya Tirupathi, S/o Late Rajeshwar, Occ - Student, R/o (Kakarlapalli) Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal Dist.

3. Koyya Damoder, S/o Late Rajeshwar, Occ - Student, R/o (Kakarlapalli) Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal Dist.

4. Koyya Anjaiah, S/o Late Rajeshwar, Occ - Student, Flio (Kakarlapalli) Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal Dist.

5. Koyya Aveela, D/o Late Rajeshwar, Occ - Student, Ryo (Kakarlapalli) Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal Dist. (being 5), Rep by mother 1st Appellant) Madathapalli Madathapalli Madathapalla Madathapalla Madathapalli minors 4 and ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1 T Devika, W/o Ravinder Reddy, Occ - Agriculture and the owner of the Crime Vehile, Ryo H.No.4-141 , Sericapalli (V), Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 The Sriram Geni-.ral lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Eranch Manager, Pochammam Maidan, Warangal. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,1 988 against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.888 of 201O dated.30.O3.2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident 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 Lower C.ourt and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri K Ajay Kumar, Ad\Dcate for the Respondent No.2 aM none appeared for the respondent No.1. / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 'l . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed;

2. That the respondent Nos. 'l and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.3,91,000/- to the appellants along with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the dilte of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of h,vo 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 appellants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security in the ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal: and

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

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, at Warangal 2. Two CD Copies ADK e HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ( DECREE MACMA.No.2456 of 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS o2\ \ il,{- u>