A YANADAMMA Vs. G SREENIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six appeals sprout from the award and the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore in O.P. No.327 of 1985 and the series, out of which the subject matters of the appeals are the O.P. Nos.327, 328, 329, 425, 426 and 443 of 1985 respectively. The appellants are the claimants in the respective petitions filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). The respondents in the appeals were the two respondents before the Tribunal. All the petitions arising out of the same motor vehicle accident were tried together by recording common evidence and disposed of by means of common judgment by the Tribunal. Similarly, these appeals involving common questions of law and facts have been heard together and are being disposed of by means of this common judgment.

(2.) The particulars of the respective claims are tabulated as herein:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_259_ALT1_1997Html1.htm</FRM> As the last column in the tabulation supra discloses, the claim petitions at Serial Nos.1 to 3 were partly allowed and Serial Nos. 4 to 6 were dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the respective claimants have filed the appeals.

(3.) The admitted and common facts and controversies should initially record itself as the backdrop for considering the respective appeals. The petitions at Serial Nos.l to 3 in the tabulaion are the death claim cases, whereas Serial Nos.4 to 6 are the personal injury claim cases, the former having been filed by the legal heirs while the latter batch cases are of the injured persons. The 1st respondent is the owner of lorry No.AAN 8019 and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. While the three deceased persons viz., Ankinapalli Lakshmireddy, Ankinapalli Chinna Malakondareddy and Ankinapalli Obulreddy and the claimants and also other villagers were travelling in the lorry on 10-2-1985 at about 2 p.m. when the lorry was proceeding between Akbarbad and Sangam the lorry met with an accident while negotiating a curve since the driver of the lorry lost control over the vehicle and the lorry turned turtle, as a result of which three persons died and other claimants and certain persons were injured. It was alleged that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and after an enquiry it was found to be true. With such a finding, since the 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the same, the liability in regard to the extent of the compensation was jointly and severally fixed as against the respondents in the cases at Serial Nos.1 to 3 (death cases), whereas in view of the existence of the defence of the respondents in regard to want of liability, the other claim petitions supra were dismissed. The results in the other claim petitions in the batch are not relevant in these appeals.