The High Court · 2025

2- The Sriram General lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal. ... Respondents/ResPondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati Counsel for the Respondent No.1: - - - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri K Ajay Kumar The Court detivered the following: Judgment ,-- {t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTC:E J. SREENTVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A. No ,L7O9 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: Aggrievecl by the award and decree dated IB.O2.2O|3 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal (for short the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No.399 of 20 11, rhe present appeal is filed by the claimant.

2. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company Limited.

3. Brief facts of case: 3.1 On 05.08 2O10 while the appellant was proceeding with some others in an auto rickshaw bearing No. Ap 36 U g27s near Narsakkapaliy 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 maxner at high speed from the opposite direction and dashed the auto. Due to which, two passengers of the auto died on the spot and the appellant and others have sustained grievous injuries. I I \ Immediately after the accident, the injured were shifted to the ho spital for treatment. 3 .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 appellant was aged about 35 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.399 ot 2011 claiming an amount of Rs.3,OO,0OO/ and the Tribunal has allowed the M'V'O'P'No'399 of 2011 in part and awarded ar amount of Rs'42'750/- to be payable by the respondent Nos'1 and 2 jointly and severally' Hence this aPPeal. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appella nt:

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellalt submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries on O9'08'201O and she has filed M.V.O.P. No.399 of 2Oll claiming an amount of Rs'3'00'0OO/- towards compensation under various heads' To prove her claim, the appellant has hled Exs'Al to A9 documents and examined herself as PW ' 1 ' However' the Tribunal without /. J properlv con sidering the same ' passed the impr,rgned award fixing C6ntributory negligence against the tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G.'1216 as well as auto bearing No.Ap.36.U.9275, though the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the ,lriver of the tractor only.

4.2 He further submitted that in Ex.A3 charge sheet the Investigating officer specifically stated that the accident was occurred due lo the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor onl-y. However, the Tribunal without taking into consideration of same, passed the impugned ar.r,ard fixing contributory negrigence againsf both vehicle" .ria awarded meager amount

4.3 He furthe.r submitted that the Tribuna_l passed the tmpugned awarC holding that since more than the permitted passengers wen' travelling in the auto, fixed the con tri butory the said ground is not contrary to law. In negligence on contention, he relied upon a decision of the Court Andhra pradesh in M.Madhavi and others vs. Ch.Ananthaiah and others (M.A.C.M.A.No.229 of erstwhile High support of his 2OO9l. I I t 4 t f Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended 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.

6. Learned counsel for the appellalt by r.,"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: 7 . This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has sustained injuries in the accident which was occurred on 09.08.2010. Ex.Al F.l.R. No.173 of 2010 was registered on 06.08.2O1O for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Investigation Officer aJter conducting detailed investigation filed /6 l ..t Ex.A3 charge sheet on l9.1O.2O1O wherein it was specificallv meritidhed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor Do-jar bearing No. 4P.23.G.7216, due to which, the appellant and others have sustained grievous injuries and two persons were died on the spot. The Tribunal without taking into consideration of Exs.Al and 43, fixed the contributory negligence on both the tractor and auto in the absence of aly contra evidence adduced by the respondents onl-v, on the ground that in the auto t.ivelve passengers were travelling at the time of accident.

8. In Devisingh v. Vikramsinghr, Full Bench of Madhva Pradesh High Court relying upon the principle laid down bv the Hon'Lrle Suprerne 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 lnstead of one pillion rider. The Tribunal apportioned the liability betweerr jeep driver and driver of motorcyqle on the ground that the vehicle is overloading and thus fixed the liability against both the vehicles, is not permissible under law. ' 2oo8 ac.t tsr ' 2oo8 ecJ t8l4 l 6 g. In Manjo Bee vs. Sajjad Khan3, the Division Bench of .4 MadhJ,L Pradesh High Court also held that mere overloading do not amount to contributory negligence.

10. 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 particular vehicle' the negligence or apportionment of the compensation and the liability will not fixed between two vehicles, especiaily the accident was occurred due to the rash and negiigent dtiving of the other vehicle. ln the case on hand, Exs.Al F'l'R' and Exs'A3 charge 11. 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 Maqio Bee (supra), this Court is of the considered view that apportioning the liability between tractor as weli as auto is not sustainable under law'

12. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal dated 18.02.2013 to the extent of fixing the liability ' zool l.cJ't3l o l 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 7216.

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is a1lowed in part and respondent Nos.I and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.95'5OO/- to the appellant along with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. lrom the date of petition till the date of reafrzation and respondent Nos.l and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interes', within a period of two months from the datl of receipt of a copv ol this judgment after deducting the amount if any already de posited. On such deposit, the appellant IS entitled to withdrau, the said amount without furnishing any securiQz. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, il any pending, sha-ll stand closed. I I I To, SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. ,TRUE COPY' I SECTION OFFICER Judge, at Warangal (With records, if any) .1 . The Chairman, Motor Accid"nl Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Z. OnJCC to Sri Sreeniva., pse Ravulapati, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri K Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Cop,es AD^% .+ v ,1I \, a HIGH COURT DATED.;0210U2025 \ {o 1 rrE s f4 o o r-'c 'J.2, l 10 llAH 2m ( )" -\ .,1' t r:+'l''1. JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No 1109 of 2014 PARTLY ALI-OWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,{^ \w I \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPE AL NO: 1109 OF 2014 Between: Koyya Bhadramma, W/o Linga Murthy, Occ - Coolie, Rl/o Kakarlapalli Village, Regonda Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1 T Devika, W/o Ravinder Reddy, Occ : Agriculture and owner of the Crime Vechile, PJo H.No.4-141 , Sericapalli (V), Huzuarabad Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. The Sriram General lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 201't dated.18.02.2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge, at 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 K A.iay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed;

2. That the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.95,500/- to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the Respondent Nos. 'l 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;

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

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSIST.ANT REGISTRAR. Iv\:-: LSECTTON OFFTCER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge, at Warangal

2. Two CD Copies ADK @* HIGH COUR.T DATED:02|Ct112025 ( I DECREE MACMA.No.1109 ot 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS il.,rf