Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2719 of 2003. Case: Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Dadisetti R. Amanamma and Ors., [Alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2724, 2725 & 2732 of 2003]. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2719 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri. E. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate and For Respondents: Sri. T. Ravi Kumar, Advocate and Sri. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Advocate |
| Judges | P. Naveen Rao, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 146, 147, 147(1)(a)(b), 149, 168 |
| Judgement Date | July 12, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
P. Naveen Rao, J.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 2719, 2724, 2725 & 2732 of 2003
COMMON Judgment::
1. These four appeals arise out of the decisions of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short the Tribunal) dated 25.4.2003 in four original petitions i.e., OP Nos. 812, 810, 813 and 34 of 2001. The United India Insurance Company is the appellant in all the four appeals. These four appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue for consideration is same in all the four appeals. In all the O.Ps, the learned tribunal held that cause of accident was rash and negligent driving by driver of the crime vehicle and determined compensation payable to dependants of deceased. The Tribunal declared that the deceased were gratuitous passengers and thus insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal held the owner, driver and cleaner of the crime vehicle liable to pay compensation. Having held so, directed the appellant insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal and then recover the money from the owner of the vehicle. Assailing the said orders, these four appeals are filed.
2. The only issue for consideration in these appeals is having held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, whether the claims tribunal is justified in directing the appellant to first pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants and then recover from the owner of the vehicle?
3. Briefly the facts in these appeals are as under:
4. On 9.11.1999 several persons boarded a goods vehicle bearing AP-16-W 8248 at Benz Centre Circle, Vijayawada to go to their native village to celebrate Nagulachavithi festival in their village. From each of them, driver collected fare of Rs. 32/-. When the goods vehicle reached Eluru town, the driver of the vehicle directed the cleaner to drive the vehicle and went to sleep. Cleaner took charge of the vehicle and drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached Kikaram village, the cleaner lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle dashed against the culvert on the right side of the road margin and turned turtle, due to which, four of the passengers died.
5. The original petitions are instituted by dependents of the deceased claiming compensation on account of the accident occurred to the vehicle in which they were traveling resulting in death of the breadwinner of the families. The claimants have impleaded the owner, driver, cleaner of the vehicle and United India Insurance Company Limited as respondents.
6. The learned Tribunal formulated five issues for consideration. Issue No. 4, which is relevant in these appeals, reads as under:
Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners?
7. Accepting the contention of the Insurance company that the passengers were not authorized fare passengers, the learned Tribunal discharged the insurance company from liability to indemnify the owner. The learned Tribunal held that the driver, cleaner and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial