THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA No.2573 of 2009 MACMA No.1861 of 2010 MACMA No.1862 of 2010 MACMA No.2985 of 2008 Date:15.02.2011 Between: M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager, Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. ……….. Appellant/Petitioner. And Roddaiahgari Dibbanna and 4 others. ……. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA No.2573 of 2009 MACMA No.1861 of 2010 MACMA No.1862 of 2010 MACMA No.2985 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals since involved the common question of law and the Insurance Company is common, they can be disposed of by this common judgment. MACMA No.2573 of 2009 arises out of M.V.O.P No.385 of 2003, MACMA No.1861 of 2010 arises out of M.V.O.P No.386 of 2003, MACMA No.1862 of 2010 arises out of M.V.O.P No.387 of 2003 and MACMA No.2985 of 2008 arises out of M.V.O.P No.388 of 2003 and all the MVOPs were tried together and common judgment was passed on 14.7.2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company preferred the above appeals. For the sake of the convenience, the facts in MACMA No.2573 of 2009 are referred. On 10.1.2003, at about 11.30 p.m., the claimant along with some other passengers were tralvelling in an auto bearing No.AP21- U-9935 from Tangutur to Nandyal. It is alleged that the driver of the auto drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes when he noticed one buffalo crossing the road and as a result of which, the auto fell down and claimant and others were sustained injuries. The claimant sustained a fracture of left superior and inferior pubic rami and fracture of right acitabular cavity and injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Nalgonda Government Hospital for treatment. The claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim of the claimant. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and ultimately, the claimant in M.V.O.P No.385 of 2003 was awarded Rs.88,270/-, the claimant in M.V.O.P No.386 of 2003 was awarded Rs.32,150/-, the claimant in M.V.O.P No.387 of 2003 was awarded Rs.33,750/- and the claimant in M.V.O.P No.388 of 2003 was awarded Rs.11,290/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. The only point raised by the Insurance Company is that the liability of the Insurance Company is to be calculated by adding up to those number of awards on higher to the extent of number of passengers covered by the insurance policy and to apportion the same among all the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company also relied up on the judgment of the Apex Court in case between NATIONAL INSRUANCE COMPNAY LTD., V. ANJANA SHYAM AND OTHERS[1]. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has not disputed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above said decision The only point that arises for consideration is whether these appeals have to be disposed of as per the ratio laid in the above referred decision. In the above said decision, the Apex Court held as follows: “We are of the view that the insurance company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the accident in a case of overloading. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to be bring benefit to the third parities who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.” In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the total sum of the amount awarded in M.V.O.P Nos.385, 386, 387 and 388 of 2003 shall be proportionately distributed to all the four injured claimants in M.V.O.P Nos.385/03, 386/03, 387/03 and 388/03. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded in M.V.O.P Nos. 385, 386, 387 and 388 of 2003 and the amount shall be distributed among the four claimants proportionately i.e., in proportionate to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, I am not inclined to disturb the award passed by the Tribunal in other respects. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:15.02.2011 mrb [1] AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2870