NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MANNE LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent insurer among the 4 respondents, preferred the appeal impugning the award of the Tribunal in O.P. No.983 of 2004 dated 28.03.2007, in the claim filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) viz., by wife, major daughter, major son and parents of deceased Nagabhushanam, aged about 44 years as per Ex.A -5 post mortem report claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ - since awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.7,85,000/ - with interest at 7.5% p.a. with joint liability against the owner of the bus bearing No.AP 28 U 3925, the insurer (appellant herein) and the A.P.S.R.T. Managing Director and Depot Manager respectively, with contentions in the grounds of appeal by the insurer supra, wherein the claimants are shown as Respondent Nos.1 to 5, (owner of the bus and the R.T.C Lessee shown as Respondent Nos.6 to 8) that the Tribunal gravely erred in fixing joint liability on the insurer though it is A.P.S.R.T.C i.e., the lessee from the original owner that is liable to pay compensation, that Tribunal also erred in not adopting multiplier 11 i.e., the just multiplier from the age of the deceased, otherwise Tribunal should should have followed Section 163 -A of the M.V.Act for the reason even annual income above Rs.40,000/ - also as held by the Apex Court in several expressions that is not a bar to the application of Section 163 -A, the trial Court failed to follow the expressions of the Apex Court in Kailash Nath Kothari V. R.S.R.T.C,1997 AIR(SC) 481 to fix liability on the R.T.C alone, that the quantum of compensation also excessive and unjust, hence to set aside the award and exonerating the insurer.

(2.) IN the course of hearing arguments, the learned counsel for the insurer appellant besides reiterating the same drawn attention of the Court to the recent expression of the Apex Court in Purnya Kala Devi V. State of Assam, 2014 1 Decisions Today 122 in saying as per the said expression and from reading of Section 2 Sub -section 30 of the M.V.Act, 1988, R.T.C. the lessee alone is the owner and not the original owner in whose name the vehicle registered and once there is liability for the owner, the question of fastening liability on the appellant -insurer does not arise. Hence on that counts also to exonerate the insurer by allowing the appeal sought for.

(3.) THE claimants filed cross -objections impugning the quantum of compensation in seeking as prayed for before the Tribunal to allow and also with the submissions that the award of the Tribunal holds good, for this Court while sitting in the appeal, there is nothing to interfere in fixing the joint liability but for enhancement of compensation.