LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-406

DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. VEPATI RANI

Decided On December 18, 2019
DIVISIONAL MANAGER Appellant
V/S
Vepati Rani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP 07 Y 5729. Claimants 1 to 4 are the parents, wife and the minor child. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident.

(2.) The case of the claimants is that on 13.08.2013, the deceased was travelling in Hero-Honda Passion bike from his workshop to his house. At that point of time, an Indica car bearing Registration No AP- 09-X-7418 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Ashok Leyland Mini goods van bearing Registration No. AP-29-TB- 7635, which in turn dashed against the bike driven by the deceased bearing Registration No.AP-31-BK- 2801. As a result of the impact, the C.M.A.No. 2433 of 2019 deceased fell on the right hand side. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.AP 07 Y 5729, which was insured with the appellant, came from the opposite direction and hit against the deceased causing his death. Accordingly, the claimants made a claim seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.1,51,00,000/-.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the appellant has contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Driver of the car, van and the deceased. Admittedly, the lorry insured with the appellant was travelling from the opposite direction. The deceased also fell on the opposite direction. Therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to fix the liability at 90% on the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP 07 Y 5729 and 10% on the driver of the Car bearing Registration No AP-09-X-7418. The owner of the van has also been exonerated and lesser liability was fixed on the owner of the car, since these two vehicles have not been insured. They were not arrayed as parties at the first instance and only at the instance of the appellant they have been impleaded subsequently and that too by the orders of this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation arrived at is also very excessive and, therefore, the appeal will have to be allowed.