NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M SANTHOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA CMA No. 1024 of 2007 is filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd., and MA CMA No. 1586 of 2009 is filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., both against the order dated 06.12.2006 in OP No. 1508 of 2004 on the file of the MACT cum III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents 1 to 6 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 7,55,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, fastening the joint and several liability against both the appellants in equal measure i.e., Rs. 3,77,500/- each along with the owners of the respective vehicles. As both the appeals arise out of the same order, between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 6 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Narayana Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.08.2003. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children and claimants 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP 15 V 5699 belonging to the 3rd respondent-V. Nagaraju, insured with 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd., in the OP, near Kondapak village and that the lorry bearing No.AP 23 T 1316 belonging to first respondent-Md. Chand Pasha, insured with 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Ltd., in the OP, coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the jeep, as a result of which the deceased sustained head injury and died. According to the claimants, the driver of the jeep also drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles.

(3.) The owners of both the vehicles remained ex-parte. Both the insurance companies filed counters, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.