M SURYANARAYANA Vs. G SATYAVATBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Cross-objections in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 187 of 1977 arise out of a common order passed by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakapatnam dated 17-1-1977 allowing the petition filed by the respondents herein awarding a sum of Rs.20,000-in all towards compensation under Section 100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 187 of 1977 is Sled by the owner of the vehicle which caused the death of the deceased and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.179 of 1978 is filed by the claimants of the deceased. The Cross-objections in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 187 of 1977 are also filed by the claimants of the deceased.

(2.) A lorry bearing Registration No. A.P.S. 2521 belongs to the appellant one Suryanarayana. The said lorry was insured with the 7th respondent, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Madras. One late Dorabbai, who was carrying on Timber business went to Jayapore in Orissa State to purchase timber. The timber that was purchased was loaded into lorry A.P.S.2521 for being transported to Peddapuram in East Godavari District. The driver of the lorry was one Peketi Someswara Rao an employee of the lorry owner Suryanaiayana. As the goods belong belong to Dorabbai, he was travelling in the lorry along with the load. On 16-6-1974 at about 9-30 P.M. while the lorry was reaching Anakapalli, it dashed against the culvert No.2/3 and then against a mango tree near the same place, as a result of which Dorabbai died on ths spot. As the deceased was the only bread-winner of the family, his dependants filed O.P.No.128 of 1974 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam oi Rs. 90.030/ . According to the claimants, the deceased was hale and healthy and would have earned a lakh of rupees in his business had he survied. The claimants are six in number. They are bis wife, mother two sons and two daughters.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the appellant-lorry owner contending that he was not aware that the deceased was returning from Jaypore to Peddapuram or was travelling in the lorry or that he died in the accident, that the lorry was intended to carry only goods and not passengers, that the driver was not authorised either directly or indirectly to carry any passengers and that if the deceased travelled by the said lorry he must have done it on his volition and at his risk. Since the driver was unauthorised to carry passengers, be (owner) is not vicariously responsible for the act of the driver. He also denied that the lorry was driven rdshly and negligently by the driver Someswara Rao and that the death occured due to rash and negligent act of the driver. He aslo contended that in any event the compensation claimed is bigbly excessive and exaggerated.