IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4648 of 2003 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Adilabad and another .. Appellants AND Kova Sakru Bai and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 15-10-2003 in O.P.No.385 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad. Kova Jaithu and other labourers were going on lorry AHJ- 6989 for unloading the cement and bricks loaded in the lorry at the destination on 19-2-1999 at about 3.00 P.M., when near Pochammaloddi bridge, there was a head-on-collision with Cargo van AP1-T-2352. The rash and negligent driving of both the drivers was alleged to be the reason for the accident and on the lorry turning turtle and the load falling on him, Kova Jaithu died on the spot. Jainoor police registered Crime No.7 of 1999 and the deceased aged 34 years was claimed to be earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a labourer. His wife, two sons and a daughter claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owners and insurers of both the vehicles. The owner of the van-1st respondent put the claimants to strict proof and denied any negligence on the part of its driver. The rash and negligent driving of the other lorry was claimed to be the reason for the accident. The driver of the Cargo van was stated to be holding a valid driving licence and the 1st respondent denied any liability to pay any compensation. The insurer of both the vehicles contested the claim denying any rashness and negligence in driving of both the vehicles and claimed the deceased to be travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle, due to which the insurer is not liable to compensate his dependents. The insurer sought for protection of Sections-144, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and desired the claim to be negatived. The 3rd respondent-owner of the lorry contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van and it is the respondents 1 and 2 that have to pay compensation. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 to B.6 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award relying on the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 as proving the accident and the death of Kova Jaithu. The Tribunal also concluded from the registration of crime against both the drivers that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The head on collision was attributed to no other cause and the claimants were accepted to be the legal representatives of the deceased. The deceased was considered to be aged 44 years by the time of accident with reference to the circumstances on record and the income of the deceased as a labourer was considered to be Rs.2,000/- per month, out of which 1/3rd was deducted towards living expenses of the deceased. On the balance, multiplier of 15 was applied taking the loss of dependency to Rs.2,40,000/- and the Tribunal confined the total compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- inclusive of all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that can be claimed. The Tribunal deduced from Ex.B.1-letter from the Regional Transport Authority, Chandrapur that the driver of the lorry had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident in between the expiry of the earlier licence and the taking of a renewed licence. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the 4th respondent-insurer is not liable to pay compensation and the 3rd respondent alone is proportionately liable to pay compensation. Hence, the liability was fixed on respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. and costs. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Managers at Adilabad and Vijayawada as respondents 2 and 4 in the claim, filed this appeal contending that the 4th respondent should not have been made liable in view of the very findings of the Tribunal itself and contended that the award is not in accordance with Section 168 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sri U. Pratap Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 are heard. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of both the drivers with their rash and negligent driving for the accident is concerned, no party had challenged the same. The happening of the accident involving two vehicles, Kova Jaithu travelling in the lorry being injured and dead in the accident, the claimants being dependents of Kova Jaithu and the quantification of the just and adequate compensation by the Tribunal are also not questioned. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the driver of the lorry had no valid and subsisting driving licence on the date of the accident also remained unchallenged and the finding of the Tribunal that since the lorry bearing No.AHJ 6989 was driven by a person without having a valid licence, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay compensation in terms of the conditions stipulated in the insurance policy and therefore, the 3rd respondent to the claim was proportionately liable to pay compensation to the claimants was also not the subject of challenge by any party by way of any cross- objections or cross- appeal. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation should be fastened to the respondents in terms of the said conclusions. While the decree was in terms of the award irrespective of the contents of the findings, the direction was against the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally, while the 4th respondent is not liable to pay the said compensation amount. The effect was to make the 2nd respondent liable for the entire compensation jointly and severally along with the 1st and 3rd respondents though the 4th respondent was held not liable to pay its share of the compensation. The conclusions of the Tribunal indicate the responsibility of both the drivers for the accident with their equally blameworthy rash and negligent driving to be equal and if the blame has to be shared equally by the drivers of both the vehicles, the liability to compensate also had to be shared equally by respondents 1 and 2 on one hand and respondents 3 and 4 on the other. Appropriate drafting of the result portion of the award and the decree could have been to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable for half of the compensation with interest and costs thereon, while the 3rd respondent be made liable for the remaining half of the compensation. As the result portion of the award and decree are not in conformity with the conclusions in the order, the same have to be remoulded in this appeal according to the same. Therefore, the award dated 15-10-2003 in O.P.No.385 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, is modified by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to be liable for half of the compensation with interest and costs thereon jointly and severally, while the 3rd respondent is liable for the remaining half of the compensation with interest and costs thereon, instead of respondents 1 to 3 being liable to pay the entire compensation jointly and severally. The non-liability of the 4th respondent to pay any compensation is upheld and the appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-02-2011 Ksn