SRIRAM SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. S MOHAMMED RIYAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven appeals are filed against awards dated 21-12-1999 in M.V.O.P.No.862, 804, 863, 806, 959, 803 & 805 of 1997 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. The claimants are the appellants. All the appeals relate to one and the same accident. As common questions of fact and law are raised in all these appeals, I propose to dispose of all the appeals by a common order.

(2.) On the intervening night of 8/9-1-1997, about 18 persons were traveling in a vehicle bearing No. APQ 747 from Nandyal to Kuruvapuram in Karnataka State. On the way, the vehicle met with an accident in Andhra Pradesh. Some persons died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. Some other persons sustained injuries. In the present batch of appeals, the appellant/claimant in CMA.No.1261 of 2000 is the injured claimant and all the other claims relate to claim petitions filed by the dependents of the deceased. According to the claimants, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The tribunal held that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company inter-alia pleaded that there are nearly 18 persons traveling in the mini-bus, it amounts to violation of policy conditions and so it is not liable to pay any compensation and if any compensation is to be paid, the owner of mini-bus is solely responsible, but not the insurance company. On the basis of evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident vehicle was carrying more than 18 persons at the time of the accident, it is a blatant violation of conditions of policy and also violation of permit conditions. In view there of, the tribunal held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It held that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation. The tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled to in each O.P. and passed the awards against the owner of the vehicle alone. The tribunal dismissed the claim applications against the insurance company. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

(3.) At the time of hearing all these appeals, the learned Advocate for the appellants made it clear that he is not questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in each O.P. He has stated that the appeals are filed seeking fastening of liability to pay the compensation in each O.P. against the insurance company also.