IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 1078, 1079, 1081 & 1082 of 2006 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Proddatur …Appellant A n d Surabi Venkata Ramana and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 1078, 1079, 1081 & 1082 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the order dated 21.11.2005 in M.V.O.P.Nos.459, 460, 462, 425, 391 & 407 of 2003 and dated 17.03.2006 in M.V.O.P.Nos.420, 357, 642 & 435 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Judge, Kadapa, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the said claim applications filed by the respective claimants, claiming compensation, were allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,500/-, Rs.1,54,500/-, Rs.1,29,500/-, 1,29,500/-, Rs.55,000/-, Rs.38,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,62,000/-, Rs.2,59,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the claimants on 13.01.2003, the deceased and injured were all travelling in jeep bearing No.AP 04 U 3385 to go to Kadapa and about 08.15 A.M., on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver in a bid to overtake a lorry, dashed against the APSRTC bus coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which ten persons died and four persons received multiple injuries. The police registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2003 of Ramapuram Police Station and after investigation filed report Ex.A-4 treating the case as abated as the driver of the offending vehicle, the jeep, also died in the accident. 4. The owner of the jeep, the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. After due enquiry, the Tribunal passed various awards for the respective amounts mentioned therein. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred the present appeals. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants- insurer is that the jeep was overloaded and thus there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. He would further contend that there has been contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus also. Thirdly, he would contend that the policy Ex.B-1 covers the risk in respect of one employee and nine passengers. 7. The policy Ex.B-2 does not indicate any limits over the capacity of the vehicle. No doubt, Ex.B-2 shows that the risk in respect of one employee and nine persons is covered. But, there is no restriction imposed in the policy regarding the number of passengers that can travel. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that the overloading of the jeep, if any, has been the major contributing factor for the accident. It is not a case where the driver lost control or the jeep overturned on its own on account of overloading of passengers. It is a case where the driver of the jeep was driving to catch up with two other jeeps which were going ahead at some distance and in that process he was trying to overtake the lorry without noticing the APSRTC bus coming in the opposite direction and in the process of such overtaking the jeep rammed into the APSRTC bus. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep who tried to overtake the lorry and dashed against the bus which was coming in the opposite direction on the correct side, with a view to catch up with two other jeeps going ahead. It cannot, therefore, be said that overloading of the jeep has contributed to the accident. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the driver of the bus has contributed to the accident in any manner. The bus was coming in the opposite direction and on the correct side of the road. It was only the jeep driver in a bid to overtake the lorry has crossed the lane and went towards right side of the road and dashed against the bus coming in the opposite direction. The F.I.R Ex.A-1, inquest report Ex.A-2 and the final report Ex.A-4 would all go to show that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver and neither the alleged overloading nor the driver of the bus has in any way contributed to the accident. Under those circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, does not call for any interference. 8. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the appellant. Some claimants filed appeals in M.A.C.M.A.No.2734 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1296, 886 and 843 of 2006 seeking enhancement of compensation and they have been disposed of today awarding total compensation of Rs.4,04,000/-, Rs.1,90,000/- Rs.2,25,600/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively with interest at 6% per annum. 9. Insofar as the coverage by the policy is concerned, Ex.B-2 shows that it covers the risk of one employee and nine passengers. In all, there are 14 claims pertaining to death of ten persons and four injured. I n NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ANJANA SHYAM, the Apex Court while dealing with 90 claims against the coverage in respect of 42 persons has held as follows: “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 bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical or 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 company 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 to be satisfied by the insurance company would be 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 the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company 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.” By applying the above method in the present case, it must be held that the 10 highest awards have to be taken together and the appellant- insurer shall be required to deposit the said total sum and the same shall be apportioned among the respective claimants covered by 14 awards as follows: Case No. OP No. Amount after apportionment M.A.C.M.A.No.730 of 2006 459/2003 1,43,972-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.731 of 2006 460/2003 1,38,590-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.732 of 2006 462/2003 1,16,164-00 M.A.C.M.A.No. 733 of 2006 425/ 2003 1,16,164-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.734 of 2006 391/2003 49,336-00 M.A.C.M.A.No. 735 of 2006 407/2003 34,087-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.1078 of 2006 420/2003 3,58,810-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.1079 of 2006 357/ 2003 4,14,425-00 M.A.C.M.A.No. 1081 of 2006 642/ 2003 2,32,329-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.1082 of 2006 435/2003 71,762-00 M.A.C.M.A.No. 2734 of 2008 642/2003 3,62,398-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.1296 of 2006 435/2003 1,70,435-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.886 of 2006 391/2003 2,02,369-00 M.A.C.M.A.No.843 of 2006 425/ 2003 2,24,256-00 All the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 10. The impugned awards fastening joint and several liability on the appellant insurer does not, therefore, call for any interference. However, the amounts shall be apportioned among the claimants as stated above. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th November, 2011 Lrkm.