HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3513 OF 2002 Dated 3 -12-2010 Between: Sharnappa. …Appellant. And: K.Shantamma and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3513 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the orders dated 26-6-2002 passed in O.P.No.661 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, 3rd respondent owner of the accident vehicle therein filed this appeal seeking exoneration from liability. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 25-3-1996 at about 7-30 P.M., the deceased along with his staff started from Zaheerabad to go to Sangareddy in Jeep bearing registration No.AHO 6516 belonging to R.1 and when the Jeep reached outskirts of Ranjole village, a Tractor Trailor bearing registration No.APB 2796/2797 came from opposite side and dashed against the Jeep, as a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the Government Hospital Zaheerabad where he died; that other inmates of jeep also sustained injuries; that Zaheerabad Police registered a case in Cr.No.86 of 1996 under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C and that the wife, mother and children of the deceased filed claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. R.1, owner of the accident jeep filed counter denying his liability to pay compensation. 3. R.2 who is the former owner of the tractor-trailor also filed counter stating that he had already sold the said vehicle in favour of R.3 and as such, he was no more responsible for paying any compensation. 4. R.3 the present owner of the accident tractor trailor had also filed his counter denying claim petition allegations including the rash and negligent driving on the part of the tractor driver and stated that he was not liable to pay any compensation, since the tractor trailor was not registered in his name. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for enquiry: 1. Whether the claimant proved the accident dated 21- 3-1996 committed by driver of jeep AHO 6516 driver of the Tractor and Trailor No.APB 2796 and 2797 (R.1 and R.3)? 2, Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as claimed for? 3. To what relief? 6. In support of the case of the claim petitioners, wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 co-passenger of her deceased husband and who also suffered injuries in the accident and P.W.3 driver of the Jeep and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. Whereas on behalf of the respondents, the owner of the accident Tractor trailor got himself examined as R.W.1 besides examining R.Ws.2 and 3 as eye witnesses to the accident marked Ex.B.1 judgment in C.C.No.117 of 1996. 7. The lower Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by either side and also having regard to Exs.A.1 F.I.R., A.2 Charge Sheet, Ex.A.6 M.V.I. Report, answered the 1st issue in favour of the claimants and as against the respondents holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Tractor-trailor. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and other material brought on record holding that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation. Since R.3 was the owner of the accident tractor at the time of the accident, it has fastened the liability on him to pay the said compensation brushing aside the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3. 8. R.W.1 is none other than R.3 owner of the accident tractor and R.Ws.2 and 3 are being examined by him to show that the accident had occurred due to fault on the part of the jeep driver and not due to fault of the tractor driver. R.3, though, pleaded that he had purchased the tractor from R.2 by paying part of consideration, however that it was not yet registered in his name and that as per the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the jeep driver. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in toto and awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., 9. It is the case of the appellant/R.3 owner of the accident tractor trailor that he was not the registered owner of the accident vehicle at the time of the accident; that though he was in possession of it, he should not have been made liable to pay the compensation in view of the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 who were independent witnesses and who had stated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep. It is his further case that the respondents/claimants also filed O.P.No.284 of 1996 against the owner of the jeep wherein they were held to be entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.50,000/-under no fault liability. It is contended on his behalf that in case of his plea of exoneration from liability is not considered in this appeal, the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants under no fault liability i.e., Rs.50,000/- may be deducted from the total compensation awarded in their favour. 10. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents-claimants that the lower Court after considering the entire evidence on record had come to a right conclusion in holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the tractor trailor and rightly fastened liability to pay compensation on R.3 who is the owner of the tractor trailor and the same is not liable to be interfered. 11. The evidence of PW.2, who is said to be traveling in the Jeep at the time of the accident, is that while he was returning in a Jeep from Zaheerabad, there was a bridge at Ranjole village, where one tractor came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep on right side and that the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The said accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tractor. The evidence of PW.3 is that on the date of accident he was driving the jeep from Zaheerabad to Hyderabad, in which the deceased, PW.2 and others were traveling. When he reached on a bridge near Ranjole village, as there was gravel, he was driving the jeep on the left side of the road carefully, a tractor came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep, as a result, the deceased received injuries and died on the spot. The accident happened due to the fault of the driver of the tractor. Exs. A.1 to A.5 indicate that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor. Further, appellant herein- respondent No.3 was in possession and enjoyment of Tractor on the date of the accident under an agreement of sale- Ex.A.9. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the appellant-respondent No.3. 12. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice B.N.RAO NALLA Date: 3-12-2010. Stp/Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.3513 OF 2002 Dated -11-2010