The court established that negligence in a motor accident can be attributed to the failure of the vehicle owner to exhibit proper safety signals, impacting liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J).

This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful wife, minor children, father and mother of the deceased for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs for death which has been rejected by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, by order dated 23.07.2014 in O.P. No.50 of 2011.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, are as follows:

(a) The deceased Dr.Chintha Rajasekhar, M.B.B.S. and PG (Diploma) in Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases, has been practicing as a Doctor and running a private hospital namely Saritha Hospitals (chest & critical care unit) at Jangareddygudem. While so, on 04.01.2011, the deceased was on his way from his native place i.e., Nowduru of Veeravasaram Mandal to Jangareddygudem, by self–driving in his car bearing registration No.AP 37AM 2552. When his car reached Gopannapalem Village at about 10.15 p.m., upon noticing bullock cart carrying a heavy load of Palmyrah leaves coming in opposite direction, he after giving dim and dip of car light signals and blowing horn crossed the said bullock cart, but unfortunately, Lorry bearing registration No.AP 21U 0090 was stationed in the middle of the road without exhibiting any parking signals to identify the same, un-noticing the same, the deceased had rammed the car into the said stationed lorry, thereby receiving severe injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The deceased was having valid driving license and the car in which he was travelling i.e., Ford Fiesta Car was also validly insured with the 3^rd respondent – New Indian Assurance Company Limited. Even the lorry involved in the accident was also insured with the 4^th respondent – M/s.IFFCO – Tokia General Insurance Company Limited.

(b) The claimants have attributed negligence to the driver of the lorry who has stationed the vehicle in the middle of the road at 10.15 pm without exhibiting any parking signs which was the root cause of the incident. It is claimed that the deceased being a qualified doctor and having also done P.G. Diploma in Tuberculosis and Chest Deceases in the year 2000, had a considerable private practice at Jangareddygudem and for the assessment year 2009-10 has a professional income of about Rs.3,23,742/-. The deceased was also claimed to have constructed a hospital with G+3 floors to expand the operations, so had sufficient source of income.

(c) Both respondents – Insurance Companies have filed written statements and opposed the claim made before the Tribunal essentially on the ground that the accident occurred only because of negligence of the deceased who was driving car on his own and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, inasmuch as the lorry was not in the middle of the road as alleged by the claimants and rather the accident occurred while the deceased tried to overtake the bullock cart, dashed the Lorry. Further they have also contended that FIR, Inquest Report and Final report submitted by the police upon investigation indicated that the accident occurred while the deceased overtook the Bullack Cart and dashed stationed Lorry only because of the sheer negligence of the deceased driver, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the respondents – insurance companies.

(d) The 4^th respondent insurance company further raised another contention that there was only limited coverage qua it for a sum of rupees two lakhs against third party for which a separate and independent claim has been made, which has to be considered separately.

(e) Tribunal after evaluating the evidence brought on record by the claimants i.e., the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A23 and on behalf of the respondents, the evidence of R.W.1 and the documents under Ex.B1 coupled with E