SHAIK ALI SAHEB Vs. K RAJASHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants in O.P.No.365 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda filed this M.A.C.M.A., aggrieved by the dismissal of the O.P., through order, dated 03.10.2005.

(2.) The appellants filed the O.P. stating that their son, by name Shaik Masthan Ali, who was aged about 18 years and working as a tin maker, boarded a lorry bearing No.ABK 9547 on 29.11.2002 along with his goods at Hyderabad, in order to go to his native village. The lorry is said to have dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.ATS 6257. It was alleged that the said lorry was parked by the side of National Highway No.9 near Kaithapuram Village, with steel rods protruding outside, and that at about 2:00 a.m., when the lorry bearing No.ABK 9547 passed by its side, the steel rods pierced into the cabin and their son died. They claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, against the owner of the lorry bearing No.ATS 6257, the first respondent, and its insurer, the second respondent. They alleged that no precautions were taken, while parking the lorry on the part of the road, and that the steel rods have protruded towards the road side, in a negligent and dangerous manner.

(3.) The first respondent remained ex parte. The matter was contested by the second respondent alone. It was pleaded that the O.P. was not maintainable, since the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle and that the owner or the insurer of the vehicle, in which he travelled, were not made parties to the O.P. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately, through the order under appeal, it dismissed the O.P., holding that the driver of the lorry, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, was not liable for the accident. Smt. P.Lakshmi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal proceeded on certain notions contrary to law, in dismissing the O.P. She contends that the accident took place only on account of the negligent manner, in which the lorry bearing No.ATS 6257 was parked with steel rods protruding outside its body. She also contends that the appellants did not feel the necessity of impleading the owner of the lorry, in which the deceased travelled, since the facts themselves revealed that there was no negligence on the part of its driver. She further contends that the documentary evidence, in the form of charge sheet etc., coupled with the oral evidence clearly establishes that the accident occurred squarely on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the parked lorry.