KAMPALLI LAXMIRAJAMMA Vs. MANKALI SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the appeals arise out of same accident and the respondents in both the appeals are common, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.Ps.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in O.P.No.768 of 2003 remained ex parte. They filed a written statement in O.P.No.651 of 2003 denying the averments made in the petitions, while admitting that the 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the jeep. It is contended that the 1st respondent was driving the jeep slowly and cautiously, but one Aggi Chandraiah drove the motorcycle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the jeep. To avoid the accident, the 1st respondent took extreme left side of the road and therefore the jeep turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle. It is also contended that if any compensation to be paid, it has to be paid by the Insurance Company as the 1st respondent got valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident.