Telangana High Court
MACMA/962/2006 of The Divisional Manager, Vs Penubarthi Prabhavathi Devi on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.962 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order, dated 02.11.2005, passed in O.P.No.199 of 1996 by the District Judge, Ongole. The brief facts of the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDM.A.C.M.A.No.962 OF 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order, dated02.11.2005, passed in O.P.No.199 of 1996 by the District Judge,Ongole.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Respondents/claimants who are the wife, the daughter and theson of the deceased filed the said O.P. claiming compensation ofRs.7,00,000/- for the death of Penubarthi Krishna Murthy who died inmotor accident. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about45 years and was working as head master and earning Rs.5,129/- permonth. While so, on 08.07.1995, he started from Thettu along with tworice bags and boarded the lorry bearing No. AAH 6679 and paid thecharges for himself as well as for the rice bags. When the lorryreached outskirts of Ulavapadu at about 7.15 A.M. another lorrybearing No. AAO 5999 being driven by its driver at a high speed in arash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashedagainst the lorry in which the deceased was travelling, due to whichthe deceased died instantaneously.
The unofficial respondents remained ex parte before the Courtbelow. Respondents 3 and 5 therein filed separate written statementsdenying all the material allegations.
On behalf of the respondents/claimants, PWs 1 and 2 wereexamined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked and on behalf of theinsurance companies, no witnesses were examined but Exs.B-1 to B7were marked.
On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the learned Judge allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.5,45,000/- to the respondents/claimants.Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the present appeal isfiled by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learnedjudge committed a serious error in holding negligence in the proportionof 80:20 in respect of lorries bearing Nos. AAO 5999 and AAH 6679respectively in view of the fact that PW2 being an eyewitness onbehalf of the claimants stated that vehicle bearing No. 6679 also cameat a very high speed. Moreover, there is no other evidence on recordas to who is more and who is less negligent.
The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contendedthat the compensation awarded by the learned judge is quitereasonable and needs no interference.
Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. As seen from the evidence, a bus was stopped on the road andoffending lorry bearing No. AAO 5999 came from its back side to crossthe bus. In my view, the driver of lorry bearing No. AAO 5999 ought tohave observed whether any vehicle was coming from oppositedirection or not. He should have reduced the speed of the vehicle andkept the vehicle under his control. At least he should have given hornbefore crossing the bus. The evidence of PW2 clearly shows that thedriver of the lorry bearing No. AAO 5999 was negligent in driving. There is no rebuttal evidence in this case. The official respondentshave not examined any other witness. The driver of the lorry bearingNo. 5999 is also not examined. For non-examination of the said lorrydriver, adverse inference has to be drawn. PW2 deposed that thelorry bearing No. AAE 6679 also came in high speed. The evidenceon record clearly establishes that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAO 5999 was mainly at fault. The learned judge relying on thejudgment in APSRTC v N. KRISHNA REDDI AND OTHERS[[1]]observed that though the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAO 5999 wasmainly responsible, the liability of other driver cannot be absolved. He
too must have seen whether any vehicle was coming from oppositedirection or not. Had he been little careful and reduced the speed ofthe vehicle on seeing the bus parked on the road, he could haveavoided the accident and rightly held that respondents 1 to 3 thereinare jointly and severally liable to pay 20% of the compensation andrespondents 4 to 6 therein are jointly and severally liable to pay 80 %of the compensation to the claimants.
Therefore, I see no merit in the appeal and the same isdismissed. No costs.
GHULAM MOHAMMED,J
Dt. 30.12.2010lvl
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
M.A.C.M.A.No.962 OF 2006
Dt. 30.12.2010