V RAJESWARA RAO Vs. KARNA AUDEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 3rd of October, 1970, at 11-30 A. M. there was a collision between the bus A.P. N. 3429 and tractor A. P. N. 5585 on the road between Kanigiri and Kandukur at a place between the villages Dubagunta and Kollagunta. One Ramireddi who was travelling in the bus died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and another person by name Lakshmaiah was injured. Ramireddi's legal representatives, his widow and minor son filed O.P. No. 66/71 under section 110-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Another legal representative of the deceased Ramireddi. the mother, was added as respondent No. 6 to the petition. Lakshmaiah the injured, filed O.P- No 72/71 claiming compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. Respondents 1 to 5 in both the petitions are the same. Respondents 1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the bus whereas respondents 3 and 4 are the driver and owner of tractor. The 5th respondent is the Madras Motor General Insurance Company with which both the bus and the tractor were insured. Later on, the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., came in the place of the Madras General Insurance Co., as the 6th respondent in O.P. No.72/71 and as 7th respondent in O P. No. 66/71.

(2.) The case of the petitioners in each of the O.Ps. was that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicles by the respective drivers. It was contended on behalf of the owner and the driver of the bus that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver but the accident was due to the negligence of the tractor driver, one Bonala Subrahmanyam and it was therefore contended that Bonala Subrahmanyam also was a necessary and proper party. On the other hand, the contention of the owner of the tractor was that Bonala Subrahmanyam was not driving the tractor at that time and it was only the 3rd respondent Venkata Subbaiah that was driving the tractor. There was no negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent and the driver and owner of the bus alone were liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of of the tractor driver Bonala Subrahmanyam, but as he did not hold a licence, the Insurance Company is not liable according to the terms of the policy and the provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939. Even assuming that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited to Rs. 2,000/- under the terms of the policy as well as section 93 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939.

(3.) The Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Ongole) after considering the entire documentary and oral evidence in the case held that neither Bonala Subrahmanyam nor the third respondent was driving the tractor at the relevant time, and it is not known as to who the driver was. The Tribunal further held that the drivers of both the vehicles were guilty of gross negligence in driving the vehicles and hence respondents 1,2 and 4 namely the owner and driver of the bus and the owner of the tractor were jointly and severally liable for the compensation payable to the petitioners in each case. The Tribunal held that the petitioners and the 6th respondent in O.P. 66/71 who were the heirs of the deceased Ramireddy, are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and the petitioner in O.P. 72/71 would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that its liability was limited to Rs. 2,000/- in each case. The Tribunal therefore directed that out of the compensation awarded in each case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 2.000/- and there should be a joint and several liability to pay the balance on the part of respondents 1,2 and 4.