ANDHAVARAPU KAMARAJU Vs. THAMMINENI SEEATHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1528, 1581, 1529 and 1538 of 1997 were filed by the owner of the vehicle bearing No. APS 4237, the respondent No. 2 in the original petitions, bearing Nos. 194, 161, 246 and 28 of 1991 respectively, involved in the accident assailing the finding of the learned Chairman (Addl. Distt. Judge), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, fastening the liability of the decretal amount, excluding a sum of Rs. 25,000 from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, ordered to be paid by the insurer, the appellant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1922, 2267, 1825 and 1974 of 1997 respectively, under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the untimely death of the deceased persons, in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 8.12.1990 at about 3.30 p.m. when the deceased and others who were students, boarded the said lorry. The deceased persons travelled in the said lorry to attend the meeting at Visakhapatnam. After attending the meeting they boarded the same lorry to reach Srikakulam on the next day in the early hours, the respondent No. 1, driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it turned turtle.

(2.) To appreciate the contentions raised by both the counsel, a few facts of the cases are narrated as under: On 8.12.1990 at about 3.30 p.m. the deceased persons and others who were students boarded the lorry bearing No. APS 4237 so as to go over to Visakhapatnam to attend a meeting and on the next day they boarded the same lorry to reach Srikakulam and in the early hours they reached Srikakulam and the respondent No. 1 driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and when the lorry crossed Budhumuru and was proceeding towards Chilakapalem junction at about 7.00 a.m. on the National Highway No. 5, the lorry turned to the left side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and again to the right side of the road and some of the persons travelling in the lorry sustained injuries and the deceased persons died on the spot. The driver of the vehicle escaped from the scene of accident. On information given by Singuru Ramanarao, one of the injured persons, the Station House Officer, Town-11 Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 277 of 1990 under sections 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and transferred the same to J.R. Puram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction, which was again numbered as Crime No. 160 of 1990. The deceased persons in all the original petitions were all teenager students and, therefore, the claimants, who are their parents filed the claim petitions claiming a sum ranging from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,25,000 for the untimely death of their sons.

(3.) The respondent No. 2, insured of the crime vehicle, filed written statement stating that the lorry at the relevant time was insured with the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 1 had a valid driving licence, that the driver was neither negligent nor rash in driving the vehicle and it was an unexpected event which occurred due to the bad conditions of the road and in spite of diligent driving of the respondent No. 1, the accident occurred and, therefore, the Engineering Department of the National Highway is liable for not keeping the road in good condition as a result of which the accident occurred. As such the petitioners claimants should have made claim against the Government. He, however, admitted that the Democratic Students Organisation has taken the vehicle from the respondent No. 1 without his knowledge and consent and the vehicle was involved in the accident. As such the owner is not liable to pay the compensation. As the crime vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 for third party risks and the deceased in all the cases are third parties, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner in the event of fastening of any liability on the insured. He denied that the deceased persons were brilliant students and their age. He ultimately submitted that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and excessive and liable to be dismissed.