D. RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. VEERARAGHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON January 20,1979, at about 2.50 p.m., one D. Ramachandra Rao, the owner of the scooter bearing No. APO 4577 was proceeding from Kazipet to Hanumakonda and on the way the claimant Vceraraghava Reddy requested him to give a lift and it was acceded to. When they were proceeding, a RTC bus was coming in opposite direction and the scooter driver Ramachandra Rao tried to overtake (Sic. cross) the bus. While so, Ramamohan Rao, the driver of the motor cycle (Jawa) bearing No. APO 4542 overtook the bus from behind and he also crossed the middle point of the road and when it reached the scooter, the crash bar of the motor cycle hit the right leg of the claimant Veerara have Reddy and he sustained injuries. Accordingly, he laid a claim for Rs. 50,000/ under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 8,250/- as against Ramachandra Rao, the owner of the scooter (first respondent) against which the appeal has been filed. The contention that the driver of the motor cycle (Ramamohan Rao, 2nd respondent) was responsible for the accident was negatived. For the balance amount, the claimant Veeraraghava Reddy filed cross-objections.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that Ramamohan Rao, the owner of the motor cycle, came rashly and negligently from behind the bus, crossed the middle portion of the road and dashed the scooter, as a result the crash bar of the motor cycle hit the right leg of the claimant, causing injuries. The appellant is not negligent in driving the vehicle. The court below had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. The claimant is no other than the injured and he is also a friend of the appellant. The court below having considered the evidence, categorically found, particularly in view of the finding of the Second Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, that the owner of the motor cycle had not contributed to the accident and the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the appellant. I find that the court below is well justified and there is nothing to differ from the conclusion reached by the court below.

(3.) IT is further contended that an application CMP 11072 of 1983 was already filed to implead the insurance company as commence party and though notice was served, it has not come on record and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened only against the appellant. In view of the fact that the insurance company is not before me, I refrain from granting any relief against the insurance company. However, it is open to the appellant to recover the amount awarded from the insurance company pursuant to Exh. B-2 policy.