The court established that both insurance companies are jointly and severally liable for compensation in cases of composite negligence, ensuring victims receive just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in MACMA Nos.7, 8, 9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 86, 129, 10, 11, 38, 40 and 47 of 2023 and respondent-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in MACMA Nos.650, 659 and 680 of 2023, Sri Kuriti Vijaya Prem Swami Naidu, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants in MACMA Nos.650, 644, 651, 659 and 680 of 2023 and respondents-claimants in MACMA Nos.7, 8, 10, 11, 38, 40 and 47 of 2023, Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent–Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sri Akkam Eshwar and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants in MACMA Nos.9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 86 and 129 of 2023 and Ms.P.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in MACMA No.644 of 2023.

3. Some of the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and some are filed by the claimants assailing the orders dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the respective M.V.O.Ps.

4. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the MVOPs.

5. The facts leading to filing of the MVOPs are that on 14.05.2016, the respective deceased and the injured persons belonging to one family were travelling in an Auto bearing No.TS 01 UA 5328 from Navipet Village to Adelli Temple at Sarangapur Village, and when the auto reached Haryali Petrol Bunk at 10.50. pm, a Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TC 0699, with the load of concrete stones, drove by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the Auto in the opposite direction, as a result of which, out of 17 inmates of the Auto, 15 have died on the spot and the other two persons sustained grievous injuries.

6. Therefore, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of filing respective MVOPs claiming different amounts towards compensation along with interest.

7. The Insurance Company, who was impleaded in all the MVOPs before the Tribunal, has contested the MVOPs by filing a written statement, whereas the owners of the Auto and Tipper Lorry were set exparte. The Insurance Company denied the contentions raised by the claimants and stated that 17 members were travelling in an auto, wherein only 4 members were permitted, and on account of overload, the accident occurred. It is also stated that by inducting 17 persons, the owner of the auto violated the insurance policy. It is further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper Lorry, and therefore, the Insurance Company denied its liability.

8. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed certain issues for its consideration. Before the Tribunal, the parties led evidence, both oral as well as documentary to establish their case.

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration various factual aspects, partly allowed some claims granting various amounts towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed these appeals.

10. Learned counsel for the Shriram Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the legal defences raised by the appellant in the written statement. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to