PUTCHALA ACHAYAMMA Vs. PELAVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. One P.V. Ramakrishna Rao was the owner of a lorry, ADM 5365. The driver of that lorry was Puchala Tatharao. While that lorry was proceeding from Hyderabad to Dhawaleswaram, the said Tatharao entrusted the driving of the lorry to one D.Subramanyam, a cleaner. While that Subrahmanyam was driving the lorry, it met with an accident on 9-9-1980 at 5.30 A.M. killing Tatharao, the driver and another person by name Karri Ramu. The deceased Tatharao was aged about 40 years at the time of his death and was found to be earning about Rs. 200/- per month. On the basis that Tatharao would have been living for another 30 years more, the wife and children of Tatharao claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 75,000/- both against the cleaner, Subrahmanyam and the owner, Ramakrishna Rao and the National Insurance Company Limited, Vijayawada which had insured the owner of the lorry against the accident claims. This claim amount of Rs. 75,000/- was divided into Rs. 65,000/- towards general damages and Rs. 10,000/- towards special damages. The claim of the wife and the minor children of the deceased Tatharao was numbered as MAT OP No. 20/1981 and tried by the Motor Vehicles Acqidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam who had awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the general damages and Rs. 5,000/- towards the special damages. In the trial Court, the cleaner remained ex parte. The owner and the Insurance Company had filed separate counters. Their broad contention was that the cleaner was not employed by the owner and that the deceased had brought death upon himself by unauthorisedly allowing the cleaner to drive the vehicle and that therefore, they were not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. They also contended that the amount claimed is excessive.

(2.) The learned District Judge accepted the contention of the owner and the Insurance Company and held that the cleaner was unauthorisedly employed by the deceased Tatharao to drive the lorry. Now on that basis, the learned District Judge exonerated both the owner and the Insurance Company from their liability to pay damages to the deceased's wife and minor children. The learned Judge, however, upheld the claim of the deceased's children and the wife as against the impecunious cleaner to an extent of Rs. 45,000/- It is against the above order, this appeal has been filed by the children and the wife of the deceased Tatharao.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Somakonda Reddy argued that the lower court erred in upholding the claim of the owner and the Insurance Company and absolving them from liabilities. His argument is that the cleaner was appointed and employed while the accident took place on the business of and for the benefit of the owner and for the wrongful acts committed by the cleaner while being so employed for the benefit of or on the business of the owner, the owner shall be hold liable.