In cases of composite negligence, liability among tortfeasors must be apportioned based on their degree of negligence, despite joint and several liabilities.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.

Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 28.12.2007 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VI Additional Chief Judge (III FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2003, the appellant herein who is the respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal filed the present Appeal seeking appropriate apportionment of compensation among all the respondents before the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners, who are wife and parents of “Mr.Yellaiah” (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased’), have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 to 5 for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.10.2002.

4. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased are that on 14.10.2002 the deceased boarded an auto and reached near Chinnavangara Village; in the meantime, one APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 2812 and a Jeep bearing registration No.AP 36 U 4995, were coming in the opposite direction; the driver of jeep tried to overtake the RTC bus and in the process it dashed the auto on the right side and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries; the deceased was shifted to Dr. Rajender Reddy’s Hospital at Thorrur but he was advised to be shifted to Warangal and in the process of shifting him to Warangal, he succumbed to injuries on the way.

5. The petitioners have filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are owner and insurer of jeep as well as owners of the auto respectively. Except the respondent No.5, all the respondents have filed their respective counters denying the claim of the petitioners.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the first petitioner was examined as PW1 apart from examining an eyewitness to the accident as PW2; the petitioners relied upon documentary evidence under EXs.A1 to A4 i.e., FIR, inquest, PME report and charge sheet respectively. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and on behalf of respondent No.3, RWs 3 and 4 were examined. Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, awarded compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- to the petitioners making all the respondents to pay the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company of the jeep preferred the present Appeal with a prayer to make the appointment of the amount in proportion to the involvement of the vehicles in causing the accident.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.

8. The undisputed facts are that there is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident. There is no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal as the petitioners/claimants have not preferred any Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. The owners of the auto have also not challenged the impugned order on any of the aspects. There is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of the insurance policy at the time of accident as evident from Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy.

9. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 alleged to be the original owner of the auto bearing No.AP 36 U 242 but the contention of the respondent No.3 is that he sold the said auto to respondent No.4, who in turn alleged to have sold