DEDDULA PADMAVATHI Vs. MADDALA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants who are the legal representatives of D. Rosaiah (Deceased), who died in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents, and examined two witnesses on their behalf as P.Ws.l and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. First respondent who filed a counter inter alia contending that since his lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent, it is the second respondent that is liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, examined one witness as RW1 and marked Ex.Xl on his behalf. Second respondent, who filed a counter, inter alia, contending that since the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle, it is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, examined one witness as RW2 and marked Ex.B2 on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation against the 1st respondent only, and exonerated the 2nd respondent from its liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. Aggrieved by the Tribunal exonerating the 2nd respondent from liability, the claimants preferred this appeal.

(2.) Appeal against the 1st respondent was dismissed for non-payment of process. But that dismissal may not be of consequence, because the Apex Court in A. Robert v United Insurance Company Ltd., (1999) 8 SCC 226, held that the non-impleading or dismissal of the appeal against the owner of the offending vehicle is of no consequence, when the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle becomes final and, the insurer can be made liable for the enhanced compensation by the appellate Court.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants?