M P GURIVI REDDY Vs. PADISELA SRINIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking a compensation of Rs.1,73,000/- from the appellant who is the owner of the tractor and respondents 4 and 5 who are the insurer and owner of the Alwyn Nissan van alleging that when Seshamma (the deceased) was travelling in the van, belonging to the fifth respondent, there was a collision between the van and the tractor belonging to the appellant resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to some others. Fifth respondent chose to remain ex parte. Fourth filed its counter contesting the claim and contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation because the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. Appellant filed his counter contending inter alia that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van belonging to the fifth respondent, and as there was no fault on the part of his driver, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

(2.) In support of their case respondents 1 to 3 examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant. On behalf of the fourth respondent one witness was examined as R.W1 and Ex.B1 was marked. The Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, awarded Rs.1,01,000/- as compensation in favour of respondents 1 to 3 against the appellant and the fifth respondent, with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of recovery including the compensation, if any, awarded under Section 140 of the Act and exempted fourth respondent from its liability to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the said award passed against him, the appellant, the owner of the tractor, preferred this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since respondents 1 to 3 had in the claim petition, clearly alleged that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the van belonging to the fifth respondent, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor belonging to the appellant also. It is his contention that since there is no evidence on record to show that the driver of the tractor of the appellant is responsible for the accident, and in view of the allegations in the claim petition, the Tribunal ought to have passed the award only against the fifth respondent but not against the appellant. It is also contended that the compensation awarded to the respondents 1 to 3 is on higher side. The contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent is that since the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a passenger, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim against fourth respondent. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and fifth respondent.