NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. OJILI GOPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') are filed against the common judgment of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, passed in O.P. Nos.125, 126, 127 and 128 of 2000. As much as all the claims relate to one accident and common evidence was recorded in O.P. No.125 of 2000, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed by the Tribunal below in the judgment under appeal. All these four OPs were filed by the claimants, on account of the death of, Srikanth Ready, Y. Syamsundara Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy and one A.G. Paramesh, in the unfortunate motor vehicle accident which took place, on the intervening night of 3/4.6.1999. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that, on the intervening night of 3/4.6.1999, the deceased, Srikanth Reddy, Y. Syamsunder Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy and A.G. Paramesh were travelling in the car bearing No. KA.05-N-7323 belonging to the 4th respondent and they were proceeding from Bangalore to Gudur for their business purposes. The said car was driven by the deceased A.G. Paramesh. When the car was proceeding on National Highway No.5 at P.R. Rajpalem, it met with an accident. It was the case of the claimants that at the place of accident, the driver of the car had noticed a vehicle proceeding ahead of his car, gave signal indicating that he was overtaking the vehicle and while overtaking the vehicle, he also noticed a lorry bearing No.AEG 1519, owned by the respondent No.2 driven by the respondent No.1, which was coming in the opposite direction and gave signal by operating dip and dim lights suggesting the opposite lorry driver to slow down the speed and to give way to his motor car. It was stated despite the clear indication from the driver of the car, the driver of the lorry which was coming in the opposite direction, drove the lorry in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car which was coming in the opposite direction and in the said collision, the motor car was pushed back for considerable distance and the car was damaged completely. In the said impact, it is stated that the lorry also turned turtle and fell down to its left on the eastern portion of the road. In the said accident, all the four inmates of the car died on the spot. It was the case of the claimants that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry, which was coming in the opposite direction to the car. It was their case that the driver of the car, though had taken all reasonable care by showing the signals, but the driver of the lorry did not slow down and gave way to the car. Compensation was claimed on account of death of the deceased by impleading the 2nd respondent-owner, first respondent-driver and 3rd respondent- insurer of the lorry. Further, the owner of the car was also made as 4th respondent and insurer of the said car was impleaded as respondent No.5 before the Tribunal. The respondents 1, 2, and 4 in all the OPs remained ex-parte before the Tribunal below. The Respondent No.3-National Insurance Company limited, who is the appellant in these appeals, contested the claim by filing separate counters. The claim was resisted by the respondent No.3, while generally denying the allegations of the claimants. It has disputed the manner of accident, age and income of the deceased, status of the claimants, coverage of insurance, and validity of licence of the driver of the lorry etc. It was also their case that as much as the insured has not reported the accident to them immediately after the accident, they are not liable for payment of any compensation. Further, disputing the validity of driving licence of the driver of the car, it was their plea that, if at all the compensation is payable, and as much as the accident occurred on collision of both vehicles coming in opposite direction, as such it must be apportioned against both the vehicles.

(3.) In similar lines, the respondent No.5, who was insurer of the car, also contested the claim by filing counters. Even the respondent No.5, while generally denying the manner of accident, status of the claimants, income of the deceased, it was their case that as much as the owner of the car was not possessing valid licence, they are not liable for payment of any compensation. It was their further case that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AEG 1519 and as much as, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and, as such, they are not liable for payment of compensation.