MANDA VISWANADHAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a collision between two motor vehicles on a National Highway where each party blames the other of negligence and it is not possible to say that one account was more probably correct rather than the other, is the claim for damages by one against the other maintainable ? is the novel question that is raised in this motor accident case.

(2.) At about 12-30 P. M. the jeep APK 7145 belonging to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and driven by Ethirjulu, P. W. 3, collided with the motor car APP 9257 belonging to the first defendant and driven by the second defendant on the Vijayawada - Hyderabad National Highway near Gouravaram village. In the jeep P. W. 4 the Deputy Tahsildar, Jaggayyapet, P. W. 8, the Election U. D. Clerk, Jaggayyapet, two peons and one typist were travelling while in the motor taxi going in the opposite direction to wards Hyderabad, D. Ws. 3 and 4 and another person by name Hiladri Rao were travelling. As a result of the collision the jeep as well as the motor car sustained damages. All the occupants of the jeep as well as the driver of the car, D. W. 2 and the other occupants of the car received injuries. The driver of the motor car was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, but he was acquitted on the ground that the accused was not guilty of rash and negligent driving. The state Government has then filed the suit before the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada claiming a sum of Rs. 8,230-20 Ps. Towards damages caused to the jeep due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor car by the 2nd defendant. The third defendant alone viz., the New Premier Insurance Co., Kakinada, contested the suit and filed the written statement, while defendants 1 and 2 i.e., the owner and driver of the motor car respectively remained ex parte. A decree for Rs. 2000 against all the defendants and a decree for Rs. 6, 230 against defendants 1 and 2 was passed on 8-11-1973. Then the defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal A. S. No. 20 of 1974 to the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the decree of Rs. 2,000 against defendants 1 to 3 and set aside the decree against the defendants 1 and 2 and remanded the suit for fresh disposal according to law. On remand, defendants 1 and 2 appeared in Court and filed a written statement and contested the suit. It was contended on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 that the car driven by the second defendant was proceeding on the left side of the road with normal speed from Vijayawada to Hyderabad, that the driver of the jeep came at high speed in a zig-zag manner on the left side of the road and dashed against the car and the car was heavily damaged. It was pleaded that the position of the jeep and the car at the place of accident and the damages suffered by each of the vehicles testify that it is the jeep that hit the car situate on the left side of the road. It was also pleaded that all the 3 passengers in the car D. Ws. 3 and 4 and Niladri Rao received serious injuries and that the damages caused to the car and the injuries suffered by the passengers would prove that the jeep alone came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the car on its left side. Therefore , it was pleaded that the jeep driver was solely responsible for the accident and that the defendants were not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case held that collision occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car APP 9257 by the 2nd defendant, that the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 proved that the damages caused to the jeep were assessed at Rs. 8, 230 and accordingly decreed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 6,230 with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit since there was already a decree for Rs. 2,000 against all the three defendant.

(3.) Aggrieved against the said decision , the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.