ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. N KOUSALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fourth respondent in O.P.No.1974 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order dated 8-7-2004 passed in the said O.P. Respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter respectively of late N.Ashok. They filed the O.P. stating that N.Ashok and P.Srinivas were traveling in an Auto Trolley, bearing No. AP9T 7348, owned by the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent, on 9-7-1994 and at about 11-20 PM, one K.Mutyalu, Driver of the vehicle, dashed against the Stationery Lorry, bearing No.AAT 6997, owned by the fifth respondent herein and insured with the appellant. All the three persons are said to have died, on account of the injuries. According to them, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Trolley and reckless parking of the lorry, by its driver. They claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.

(2.) The owner of the Trolley, the third respondent herein, remained exparte. The insurers of the two vehicles and the owner of the Lorry filed counter affidavits in the O.P. The insurer of the Trolley pleaded that it is not liable to pay compensation because the deceased was traveling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. The owner of the Lorry sought to avoid his liability on the ground that the vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. The appellant, on the other hand, alleged that respondents 1 and 2 are not the legal heirs of the deceased and that it is also not liable to pay compensation, since the Lorry was a goods vehicle. Through the order under appeal, the Tribunal held that the owners of the Trolley and Lorry and the insurer of the Lorry i.e., the appellant herein are liable to pay compensation, which was determined at Rs.1,50,000.00.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal did not apportion the liability of the drivers of the trolley and lorry and dealt with the question in a vague manner, though it was held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of both of them. He further contends that once the insurer of the trolley was absolved of the liability on the ground that the deceased was the passenger of a goods vehicle, the same reasoning applies vis-a-vis to the appellant also. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent, the insurer of the Trolley, submits that the deceased was traveling in the Auto Trolley insured with it, whereas, he was a third party, vis-a-vis the lorry, insured with the appellant and that the Tribunal had appreciated the matter in proper perspective.