NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MUTYALA BHASKARA SURYAKANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the award dated 03.10.2002 passed in O.P.No.116 of 1998 by the Chairman, MACT -cum -I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short the Tribunal), the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal. The appellant herein is the fifth respondent; first respondent herein is the claimant; respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.1; respondent No.3 herein is the respondent No.2; respondent No.4 herein is the respondent No.3; respondent No.5 herein is the respondent No.4 before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) CRITICIZING the award, learned counsel for the appellant firstly argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that drivers of both the vehicles i.e. lorry and car were equally responsible for the accident. The FIR which was lodged by none other than the lorry driver himself would clearly show that while overtaking his front vehicle, he went towards his further right side and unable to locate the opposite coming car, he dashed it and thereby both the vehicles fell into road side drain. Thus, the FIR demonstratively proves the guilt of the lorry driver. Further, the police after investigation laid charge sheet against the lorry driver. Learned counsel further argued that in the connected O.P.No.131 of 1995 (exhibit B1), the MACT -cum -I Additional District Judge held that the fault in the accident lies with the lorry driver. However, the Tribunal basing on the evidence of PW2 came to an erroneous conclusion that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. He, thus, prayed to fix the responsibility on lorry driver and exonerate the owner and insurer of the car from the liability. Secondly, he argued that in the event of fixing liability on the owner and insurer of the car also, interest may be reduced from 9% to 7.5% as the same is usurious. Respondent No.5/owner of the car adopted the arguments of the appellant. Counsel for respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.4/Oriental Insurance Company supported the award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.