GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company. OP No. 109 of 1999 was filed by the claimants-respondents herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by yadaiah in the motor accident that occurred on 31-12-1998.

( 2 ) THE case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 31-12-1998 when the injured claimant (since deceased) along with two persons was going to Vanampally village on a scooter bearing registration no. AP 11b 2488 and when they reached near Ibiza Factory near Sadasivpet, a lorry bearing registration No. ATT 1536 came in the opposite direction with a load of fodder in high speed and dashed the scooter due to the impact of which he Fell down from the scooter and received grievous injuries. It is further stated that on account of the accident he was in the hospital at sangareddy from 6-2-1998 to 23-2-1999 and ultimately died during the course of the trial of the OP. Thus the claimants laid a claim for Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation.

( 3 ) THE claim of the claimants was opposed by the appellant-insurance company and the owner of the accident lorry by denying the averments as to the nature of the accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal, basing on the respective pleadings, framed necessary issues. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, the Tribunal, on evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the, accident, lorry by its driver and accordingly granted a compensation of Rs. 1,59,770/- as against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal by the insurance company.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant- insurance company vehemently contends that the finding of the Tribunal insofar as to the extent of holding that the driver of the accident lorry alone was responsible, for causing the accident is perverse inasmuch as admittedly the deceased along with two others were travelling on a scooter which is statutorily prohibited under Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). Learned Counsel further contends that as there was triple riding on a scooter, which is meant for two persons, there would be congestion to the rider of the scooter and might have lost control resulting in the accident thus there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter and under those circumstances the tribunal ought to have fastened the culpability in causing the accident on the rider of the scooter as well at least at 50 : 50 ratio. Learned Counsel lastly contends that the Tribunal totally eschewed the additional counter-affidavit filed in this behalf from consideration which resulted in erroneous conclusion by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident lorry by its driver. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of madras High Court in the case of Managing director, Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation v. Abdul Salam, 2003 (2) lw 75.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents- claimants contends that though there was triple riding on the scooter, there was no independent evidence adduced by the insurance company that the accident took place solely on account of triple riding and in the absence of so doing, the Tribunal rightly held that the driver of the accident lorry was responsible for the, accident.

( 7 ) IN the light of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the driver of the accident lorry alone was responsible in causing the accident or not.

( 8 ) THERE is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident. There is even no dispute, as to the fact that there was triple riding and the injured (since deceased) was one of the pillion rider on the scooter. Undoubtedly, triple riding on a two wheeler, is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document