NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LUNAVATHI HARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of sixteen C.M.As. being C.M.A. No. 1529 of 1998 and other fifteen C.M.As. and five C.R.Ps. being C.R.P. No. 2452 of 1999. These matters are filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd., Warangal Branch, aggrieved by the common order dated 11.4.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Warangal, in O.P. No. 272 of 1995 and batch and hence the common judgment. The parties are referred to by their status before the Tribunal.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 is owner of a private bus bearing No. AEO 4237. The bus was hired and plied by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.). On 27.1.1995 the bus was involved in an accident while the same was driven by the respondent No. 1 and going from Venkirala village to Warangal by reason of the bus hitting a culvert and falling into a trench. As a result of the accident seven persons died and eighteen persons suffered injuries. The claimants filed as many as thirty-six petitions under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming damages for death and injuries. The Tribunal appears to have dismissed eleven O.Ps. and allowed twenty-five O.Ps. The respondent No. 4 insurance company filed nineteen C.M.As. and six C.R.Ps., out of which sixteen C.M.As. and five C.R.Ps. were listed today. Be it noted that C.R.Ps. were filed because the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less than Rs. 10,000. The details of these cases are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1792_ACJ_2004Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) Before considering various grounds, the defence of the respondents may be briefly noticed. The respondent No. 2, who is owner of the vehicle denied any negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. He also contended that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 4, that as the vehicle is hired by the respondent No. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., the A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable to pay the amount. The respondent No. 3 in their counter-affidavit contended that the respondent No. 2 is employer of the respondent No. 1, that A.P.S.R.T.C. has no control over the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the owner alone is liable to pay the amount. The insurance company filed a counter-affidavit contending that the bus was overloaded beyond the permitted limit and, therefore, it is not liable to pay the amount. On these averments and counter-averments, the Tribunal framed the following issues: