Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Cornpany Limitedr held that in car

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. A V K S PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. K UDAYA SRI SRI VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT r- a' Ilqrtqu RABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSIIYI M.A.C.M.A.No.24l OF 2OlL JUDGMEI{T: Agg -icr, e d by the Order and Decree dated 2a.l2.2OOT (hereinaftt:r rvill be referred as 'impugned order') passerl b1. the learned C-rairr-ran, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum - \ I .{dditional Chief Judge UII FTC), Warangal at MahabubrLbac (hereinafter will be referred as 'l'riburnal") in M.V.O.P.lr o.1liO of 20O3, the appeliant herein whc' is the respond,3r t lb.2 before the learned Tribunal filed the present Appeal sr :ek'ng appropriate apportionment of comp,:nsation among all thr: respondents before the learned Tribunal.

2. For tht: sake of convenience, the parties hereinidter are referred ar; thtry were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. TLLe brief lacts of the case as can be seen from the record are that th( petitioners, who are wife and parents of "Mr.Yellziir Lh" (hereinafter will be referred as 'decease< [J, have hled clairr pr:tition claiming compensation of Rs.3,CtO,00O/- from the resprondent Nos.1 to 5 for the death of the dec,:ased in the road tlaffir: accident that occurred on 14.1O.2002. d i,-v.;:;ar- I 2

4. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased are that on 14.1O.20O2 the deceased boarded an auto and reached near Chinnavangara Village; in the meantime, one APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 1O Z 2812 and a Jeep bearing registration No.AP 36 U 4995, were coming in the opposite direction; the driver of jeep tried to overtake the RTC bus and in the process it dashed the auto on the right side and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries; the deceased was shifted to Dr. Rajender- Reddy,s Hospital at ta' Thorrur hut he was advised to be shifted to Warangal ald in the process of shifting him to Warangal, he succumbed to injuries on the way.

5. The petitioners have hled the claim petition against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are owner and insurer ofjeep as well as owners of the auto respectively. Except the respondent No.5, ali the respondents have frled their respective counters denying the claim of the petitioners.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the frrst petitioner was examined as PWl apart from examining an eyewitness to the accident as PW2; the petitioners reiied upon documentary e{ri{Snce under EXs.Al to A4 i.e., FIR, inquest, pME report and l** iJ 3 charge sl reel respectively. On the other hand, on l rehalf of responderrt 1fur.2, RWs 7 and 2 were examined and on behalf of responderrt l.Lr.3, RWs 3 and 4 were examined. Ex.B1 copy of insuran,:e pol.c1, was marked on behalf of respondent No.2. The learned 'lritrunal after considering the rival conr.entions, awardeci corr pensation of Rs.2,89,00O I - to the petitioners making a I the respondents to pay the compensalion lmount. Aggrieved b.r the same, the respondent No.2/ Insurance CompanS, of Jre jeep preferred the present Appeal rvith a prayer to make rhc ,rppointment of the amount in proportior-r to the involveme -rt o ' the vehicles in causing the accident- 7 . Hr:a rd troth sides ald perused the record inclu<ling the grounds oI41;oeal.

8. The ur,.<lisputed facts are that there is no dispute with regard to lhe manner of the accident. There is no disprrte with regard to he rluantum of compensation awarded b1- the learned Tribunal irs t,1e petitioners / claimants have not preferred any Appeal c:h a1le nging the quantum of compensation. The owners of the auto hir,,e also not challenged the impugned order on any of the a speclr;. There is also no dispute with regard to the €? ,- subsistence of the insurance poiicy at the time of accident as evident from Ex.B I copy of insurance policy.

9. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 alleged to be the original owner of the auto bearing No.AP 36 U 242 but tbe contention of the respondent No.3 is that he sold the said auto to respondent No.4, who in turn alleged to have sold the said auto to respondent No.S prior to the accident. In this regard, the respondent No.3 examined himself as RW3 apart from examining RW4, who is alleged to be the attestor of sale deed, dated 28.12.1999 through which respondent No.3 claiming to have sold the auto to respondent No.4. But since registration certificate was not hled, the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence of RWs 3 and 4 and in the absence of any proof as to who is the actual owner arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of drivers of auto and jeep. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order challenging the liability imposed by tlle learned Tribunal against them. 1O. The only contention of the learned counsel for the ._ respondent No.2 is that once the learned Tribunal came to the i 1 israa_- fina1 conclusion that both the drivers of auto and 1e,:p were negliger-rt rLnd responsible for the occurrence of the accident, the learned 'Liburral ought to have apportioned the amourll at 5O% on the insured and insurer of the jeep and rest at 507o on respondr:n t Ncs.3 to 5, who are the owners of the auto. 1 1. As can tre seen from Ex.A4 charge sheet, the inves;tigating agency ar; aigrred the drivers ofjeep as well as auto as lccused by arrivinll to a conclusion that they both committed an offence under Sec[ion 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is mcntioned in Ex.A4 thal the driver of the auto allowed the deceasr:d to sit on his rig rt s;rdc on the driver's seat and whereas thc ,:lriver of jeep while foll,ru,ing the APSRTC bus in the sarne drrection the bus in ra:;h irod negligent manner at high speed and overtook the bus arrd 'Jrereby hit the deceased, who sat by the right side of Accuserl No.2 on the driver seat. Even the lealned 'l'ribunal observed .Lt pErge No.12 paragraph No.32 of the impugnt:d order that it is the prrip2ry obligation on the part of ou'ncr and driver of auto t( elr sure the safety of the passengers u-hile he was carrying the passengers in the auto. But unfortuna leiy the learned 'lribrrnal imposed the liability of paynrent of compensa,iorr on all the respondents without apportioning the quantum rf liability on each of the respondents spec;fi:al1y on 6 o the ground that accurate apportionment of liability may not be possible.

12. Having regard to the findings in Ex.A4 charge sheet and the observations of the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of both the auto driver and the jeep driver. The principle of composite negligence mandates that when two or more persons are responsible for causing an accident, the liability may be joint and several, allowing the claimants to recover the entire compensation frorn either of the tortfeasors. However, inter se liability between the respondents should be apportioned based on the degree of negligence of each vehicle involved

13. In the instant case, Ex.A4 charge sheet clearly attributes negligence to the drivers of both jeep and the auto. The auto driver allowed the deceased to sit in a risky position, whiie the jeep driver overtook the APSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner, Ieading to the accident. The learned Tribunal, despite discussing these aspects in the impugned order, failed to apportion the specific liability percentages among the respondents. lt is settled principle of law that in cases where multiple vehicles contribute to an accident, the Tribunal must , r' 3 make rear;onlble efforts to assess the degree of far rlt and apportiot iability accordingly. The Honourable Supremr: Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Cornpany Limitedr held that in car;es of composite negligence, the claimants h;rve Lhe right to re lov3r the entire compensation from any one ol. the tortfeasors. lut apportionment of liability between the tortfeasors mur;t be based on the degree of negligence. In the casc of col npor;ite negligence, the claimant is entitlecl to sue both or an\ or'lc of the joint tortfeasors and to recover tltt, enLire compensatitn as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. In the cE se of composite negligence, apportionmt.nt of compensati rn between two tortfeasors uis a uis the clainrant is not permrss,ible. He can recover at his option u,hole damages from any o' tl^r:m. In case all the joint tortfeasors hav<. been impleaded and r:vidence is sufhcient, it is open to the l,ribunal to determin e r .ter se extent of composite negligencc of the drivers. Ho.veve r, determination of the extent of negligence between the joi:tt tortfeasors is only for the purpose o1 their inter se liabitity so that one may recover the sum liom the other after making; wtole of payment to the claimant to the exrent it has satisfit:d thr: liabiliff of the other. In case, both of them have '{2ols) 9 scc 273 E? I 6 been impleaded and the apportionmentf extent of their negligence has been determined by the Tribunal, one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

14. It is to be seen that the passengers cannot occupy or share the seat of driver as it would not be convenient to drive the vehicle in a proper manner. Had the driver of the auto did not allow the deceased to sit in the driver cabin i.e., front side, the deceased would not have met with an accident. Had the driver of tire jeep been cautious and careful while overtaking the bus, the accident would not have occurred. As stated supra, there is no dispute that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., jeep as well as auto. Thus, the insurers and owners of both the vehicles are equally responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

15. Considering the circumstances of the present case and the hndings in Ex.A4, it is just and reasonable to apportion liability equally between the owners and insurers of the jeep ald the auto and thereby 50% of the awarded compensation shall be borne by the respondent No.2 (insurer of the jeep) and the remaining 50% shall be borne by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 (owners of the auto) i. f

76. In vreq' of the above facts and circumstances an I since the petitiorren; have arraigned the owners and insurers of both the crime seh i:les involved in the accident to the case and in view of avrLilability ample evidence before the learned Tribunal to give a finding as to the apportionment of the liatrility among the respondcrn:s, this Court is of the considered vievv t-rat the learned Tribur-ral ought to have apportioned the liability among the resporden -s rather than leaving aside the apporti,)nment merely by sal ing that accurate apportionment of liability may not be pos sibl,:. Hence, the impugned order is liabli: to be I t modified orrly to the extent of apportionment of liability, among the respor de11[s so far as payment of compensation to the , I petitioners is r:oncerned. 77 . Acc:o 'din1gly, the Appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is n Lod-f ied to the extent of apportioning 50ozt, of the liability ag:Linsl respondent Nos.1 and 2 (owner ancl insurer of the jeep) ar,d zqrportioning remaining 50% of the liabili[ agarnst respondent Nori.3 to 5 (owners of the auto). The respondents are jointly ancl severally liable to deposit the compensation amount of Rr;2,89,000/- awarded by the learned Tr.ibunal within one mc nth from the date of receipt of copy ,tf this judgment. On such deposit the petitioners/ claiman ts are 5 IO entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them in the proportion as stated in the impugned order without furnishing any security. The petitioners/claimants are entitled to recover the compensation jointly and severally from any of the respondents as per their choice. The remaining terms of the impugned order shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed (.' -l( I //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR O.re Fair lopy to the Hon,ble Smt. Justice M.c.pRIyADARSlNl (For Her Lordship,s kind perusali ECTION OFFICER Affairs, New Delhi '1 The chairman, I\zrotor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- vr Additionar District Judge, Ill (Fast Track Court) at Mahabubabad. (With Recoras it any; 2. 'l I LR Cooies 3 The_Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 4. The Secretary, Advocate_s Association Library. High Court for the State of _ Telangana, Higrr Court euibinq;ii Hvd;-;;'rj "'" ! Qn" cc to sRT. A v K s.pRAsIo,'n,jr*IiJibpuct 9 9ne cc to SRt. K UDAYA snl, Aovociie rcjFLZr - 7. One CC to SRI. VENKAT RED'DY DoNiFiine-o-dv, Advocate tOpUCl 8. Two CD Copies To { '1 HIGH COLIRT' DATED:0610212025 JUDGMEN T tr J MACMA.N <t.241 ol 2011 ( '].) () J '1.) /t * 1t'"ir 3 r,- :i '($( ^ C) -l [? l?r ?ffi *

1.(j ALLOWING THE MACMA .d1 ?. ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 241 OF 2011 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co.Ltd, M.G.Road, Warangal through its regional office, represented by its Deputy Manager. AND

1. Avula Aruna, Wo. Yellaiah, aged about 20 years, Occ: Housewife 2. Avula Pullaiah, S/o. Hanmanthu, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture 3. Avula Somakka, W/o. Pullaiah, aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife ,fr ' '+ ...APPELLANT/R.2 R-1 to R-3 herein are Rio. chityala Viilage, Thorrur Mandar, warangal District. 4. Botla Veeraswamy, (Major), Sio. Bixapathi, age: Major, Owner of Jeep AP.15/U-4995 R/o. Naltabelly Viilage, Wardhannapet (tVt), Warangal District. 5. Pittla Venkateswarlu @ Venkanna, S/o. Somaiah, aged about 35 years, R/o. " Chityala Village, Thorrur Mandal, Warangal District.

6. Guthi Narasaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business and Auto Driver R/o. Muripirala Village, Rayaparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

7. Deshetty Srinivas, S/o. Venkataiah, Auto Driver R/o. Chityala Village, Thorrur Mandal, Warangal Diskict. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of lvlotor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO.225 of 2008 dated.06.01.2014 on the fite of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional District Judge, lll (Fast Track Court) at Mahabubabad. This appeal coming 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 tre arguments of SRl. A V K S PRASAD ,\dvocate for the appellant and of Ms K UDAYA SRl, Counsel for the Respondents This Court dott Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the I/AO1\4A be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the lmpu,lned order be and hereby modified to the Exte rt of appo(ioning 50% of tle liability against respondent Nos.1 & 2 (Owner and insurer of the Jeep) anrl aptr,ortioning remaining 50% of the Liability agains;t the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (O,,,rrners of the auto); .

3. That the respondents be and hereby joinfly and severally liable to deposit the compensirtion amount of Rs.2,89,000/- awarded by the learned rribunal within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Judg.nent;

4. That on s.lch rieposit, the petitioners/claimants be and herecy are entifled to withdraw he entire amount awarded to them in the proportion as stated in the impugned orce:r without furnishing any security; ,l

5. That the petitions/claimants be and hereby recover the conrpensation joinfly and severally from any of the respondents as per the choice,

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall sta rds confirmed in all other resper:ts; and

7. That there sha I be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /[\ 3ec,rtoru oFFrcER

1. The chairnan Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- VI A,Jditional District - .Judge, lll (Fast Track Court) at Mahabubabad. (With Records if any) 2. Two CD C:pies; To f-

4.. - HIGH COURT DATED: 0ti10212025 DECREE t' 'i MACMA.N,o.241 of 2011 ALLOWING THE MACMA 1 I :-1cL I,D )1