THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1107 of 2014

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 18.02.2013 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No.679 of 2011, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

2. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2-The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in this appeal.

3. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Brief facts of case:

4.1 On 05.08.2010 while the appellant was proceeding with some others in an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 36 U 9275 near Narsakkapally village on Huzurabad main road, at about 8-30 p.m., one tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G.7216 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from the opposite direction and dashed the auto.

Due to which, two passengers of the auto died on the spot and the appellant and others have sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the injured were shifted to the hospital for treatment.

4.2 On complaint, the Police, Parkal registered a case in Crime No.173/2010 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 32 years and working as coolie and she used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, the appellant has filed M.V.O.P.No.679 of 2011 claiming an amount of Rs.60,000/ and the Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O.P.No.679 of 2011 in part and awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Hence this appeal.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:

5.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries on 09.08.2010 and she has filed M.V.O.P. No.679 of 2011 claiming an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation under various heads. To prove her claim, the appellant has filed Exs.A1 to A3 documents and examined herself as PW.1. However, the Tribunal without properly considering the same passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against the tractor Do-jar bearing No. AP.23.G.7216 as well as auto bearing No.AP.36.U.9275, though the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor only. 5.2 He further submitted that in Ex.A3 charge sheet the Investigating Officer specifically stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor only. However, the Tribunal without taking into consideration of same, passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against both vehicles and awarded meager amount.

5.3 He further submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned award holding that since more than the permitted passengers were travelling in the auto, fixed the contributory negligence on the said ground is not contrary to law. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the erstwhile High Court Andhra Pradesh in M.Madhavi and others vs. Ch.Ananthaiah and others (M.A.C.M.A.No.229 of 2009).

6. Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appeared on behalf of very same Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2456 of 2014 submitted that, according to the evidence of PW.1, twelve passengers were travelling in the auto at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award fixing contributory negligence against both the vehicles and basing on the same, awarded compensation. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant by way of reply submitted that the appellant is not seeking any enhancement of compensation in this appeal and she restricted the claim of only in fixing contributory negligence on the part of two vehicles.

Analysis:

8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the r