B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE three appeals are of the authorship of the Oriental Insurance Company limited (insurer) and the respondent No. 2 in O. P. Numbers 203, 204 and 270 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional district Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District filed by the claimants. The claimants in O. P. 203/1989 are respondents 1 to 3 in C. M. A. 395/1991 and the owner 1st respondent is R-4 in C. M. A. 395/1991. The claimants in O. P. 204/1989 are respondents 1 to 5 and the owner of the vehicle/first respondent is respondent no. 6 in C. M. A. 412/1991. Whereas the claimants in O. P. 270/1989 are respondents 1 to 15 and the first respondent in the O. P. who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is respondent No. 16 in C. M. A. 579 of 1991. The cross-objections are filed by the claimants in O. P. 270/1989 in c. M. A. 579 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal dealt with and disposed of the O. Ps. separately. However, they arise, out of the same motor vehicle accident. The appeals and the cross- objections involving common questions of law and fact are heard together and they are being disposed of by means of this common judgment as desired.

( 3 ) THE reference to parties as claimants, the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, shall be in the status they occupied in the O. Ps. before the Tribunal.

( 4 ) IN O. P. 203/1989 the claimants are the wife and daughters of the deceased honnurappa. In O. P. 204 of 1989 the claimants are the husband and children of the deceased Nagamma. In O. P. 270/1989 the claimants claimed to be the wives, children, sisters and parents of the deceased Bhaskar Reddy. In o. P. 203/1989 Rs. 80,000/- were claimed by way of compensation whereas rs. 37,000/- were awarded. In O. P. 204/1989 Rs. 60,000/- were claimed whereas Rs. 40,000/- were awarded and in O. P. 270/1989 Rs. 2,50,000/- were claimed whereas Rs. 1,25,000/- were awarded. In all the cases the Tribunal imposed joint and several liability on both the respondents, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer.

( 5 ) MR, Bhaskara Chary, learned advocate for the respondents/claimants in C. M. As. 395 and 412 of 1991 did not argue in regard to the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the quantum of compensation in O. Ps. 203 and 204 of 1989 has become conclusive as no cross-objections are filed.

( 6 ) IN all the three appeals the appellant insurer has questioned the finding on the question of liability recorded by the Tribunal as against the insurer making it unlimited. Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned advocate has contended that with the materials on record and in view of the terms of the policy, ex. B-1, and in view of Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the limit of liability on the part of the insurer could not have been more than rs. 15,000/- and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in that regard and the final award passed in relation to the liability deserve to be set aside.

( 7 ) MR. Bhaskara Chary, and Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned advocates for claimants have contended that the finding of the Tribunal in relation to the liability does not warrant any interference in view of the fact that the insurer did not take a categoric plea about want of the absolute liability for the reasons which they are presenting in these appeals and secondly in view of the fact that the limit of liability was not specifically mentioned in the policy at rs. 15,000/- or Rs. 50,000/ -. In regard to the cross-objections mr. Krishnamurthy, the learned advocate has contended that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the income of the deceased was only rs. 1,000/- and was also wrong in deducting Rs. 400/- and taking only rs. 600/- per mensem as the contribution to the family and in spite of the clear evidence that he was having lot of income from the business of photography and some other business in addition to working as supervisor in the tourist bus. At any rate, he has contended that the total amount of compensatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document