Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
New India Assurance Company Limited vs S.V. Balakishna And Ors. on 17 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)ALT386
JUDGMENT Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.
1. New India Assurance Company Ltd.-Second respondent in O.P. 294/88 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District judge, Mahaboobnagar, preferred this appeal against the award passed on 19-2-1992.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are these:- The claimant in the above O.P. was returning from Hyderabad to Allagadda on 18-5-1986 along with his goods in the lorry AAQ 9599 by paying fare and freight. Near Pebbair, on National Highway No. 7, APSRTC bus AAZ 8565 coming from Kurnool side driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed, dashed against the lorry resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant and others. He was treated at much expense. In spite of the treatment, the injuries have resulted in permanent disbaility. He filed the above claim for a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the owner of the lorry, its insurer, and APSRTC (owner of) bus involved in the accident. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal, after due enquiry, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver only and that the claimant was accompanying his goods in the lorry after paying fare and freight and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 35,000/-.
3. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant has to be considered only as a passenger and he is not entitled to be compensated by the insurer and he further submits that the accident occurred due to 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the Tribunal erred in holding otherwise. He also submits that even if the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry alone, the APSRTC bus is liable to pay half of Rs. 7,500/- compensation payable under 'no fault liability' in view of the disablement incurred by the claimant.
4. There is undisputed evidence in this case that the claimant was accompanying his goods after paying fare and freight. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is a mere passenger not entitled to any compensation. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard.
5. The driver of the APSRTC bus involved in the accident was examined. He spoke as to how the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and not by him. The lorry driver was not examined to refute the testimony of the driver of the APSRTC bus. Thus, his evidence stands unrebutted. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry only.
6. Under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, all the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation on the principle of 'no fault liability'. In this case, admittedly, both the lorry and the APSRTC bus are involved in the accident and both are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 7,500/- compensation under 'no fault liability' to the claimant.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The third respondent-APSRTC shall pay half of the compensation of Rs. 7,500/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. No costs.