V BHAVANI Vs. MANABALA BANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four miscellaneous appeals, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act), and the revision, under article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed against the orders passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunals, in different claim petitions. Their common feature is that they arise out of O. Ps. , filed in relation to one, and the same accident. The appeals and revision are filed by the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) THE relevant facts, in brief, are that, o. P. Nos. 1761, 1762 and 1763 of 2003 were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam, by the respective claimants, stating that, they have received injuries, in an accident that took place, on 15. 10. 2002, involving the tanker, bearing No. AP 35 p 2534, owned by the appellant herein and insured with M/s. United India Insurance company Limited. O. P. Nos. 1248 of 2004 and 890 of 2006 were filed in the Court of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for similar relief. The only difference is that the claimants in O. P. No. 1248 of 2004 are the dependants of late Babu Rao, who died in the accident, and the claimant in o. P. No. 890 of 2006 is an injured in the same accident. It was pleaded that the claimants and Babu Rao boarded the tanker at atchuthapuram Village, to go to their native places and that after the tanker proceeded to some distance, the driver of the tanker lost control, and as a result, the vehicle fell into a ditch, leading to death of Babu rao and injuries to the respondents/claimants. A claim was made for Rs. 50,000/-, rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, 1,00,000/- and 4,00,000/-, respectively, by pleading the nature of injuries and the treatment received therefor. Except that the intensity and gravity of injuries differed, the facts pleaded by all the claimants were common.

(3.) THE appellant filed counter in the respective O. Ps. , denying her liability. According to her, the claimants did not board the lorry, at all, and that the accident took place, at a time, when they were about to board it. It was pleaded that, the lorry was proceeding without noticing the attempt of the passengers, who were trying to board it. It was stated that the cleaner raised hue and cry saying that the passengers are trying to board the lorry, and in the panic, the driver lost the control, and the accident took place, leading to his death and injuries to various persons. It was also pleaded that, if at all any compensation is to be paid, the Insurance Company has to be held liable for it.