HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2913 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A. No.2757 of 2011 Date: December 09, 2011 M.A.C.M.A.No.2913 of 2005: Between: United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Rangampet, Warangal. … Appellant And 1. Votti Francis Reddy & 3 others … Respondents * * * M.A.C.M.A. No.2757 of 2011: Between: Votti Francis Reddy … Appellant And 1. Syed Attaullah & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2913 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A. No.2757 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the claims made on a common accident, which has occurred, on 30.10.2002. The husband and children of the deceased Smt. V.Rani claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of her death filed O.P. No.137 of 2003. The petition in M.V.O.P. No.711 of 2003 was filed by the first petitioner in O.P. No.137 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries received by him in the motor accident. 2. On 30.10.2002 Smt.V. Rani along with the first petitioner were said to be going on a motorcycle, an auto rickshaw, AP 36U 7867 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the incident as a result of which she died and the first petitioner received injuries. 3. Though the claims arise out of the same accident, the lower Tribunal has tried the cases separately. In O.P. No.137 of 2003, which was decided on 22.2.2005, the lower Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is 25 per cent of contributory negligence on the part of the first petitioner and granted compensation to a tune of Rs.2,08,500/-. Questioning that award, M.A.C.M.A. No.2913 of 2005 was filed by the insurance company primarily contending that when the first petitioner is said to be responsible for the incident and contributed for negligence, the claim for compensation is not maintainable. In M.V.O.P. No.711 of 2003, accepting the contention of the petitioner, the lower Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th July 2005 has held that the incident happened due to the fault of the driver of the auto alone and consequently granted compensation of Rs.70,500/- and the appeal M.A.C.M.A. No.2757 of 2011 was filed questioning the quantum of compensation by the petitioner. 4. Both the matters are heard together. 5. Evidently from out of the same accident, both the claims were made and the findings recorded by the lower Tribunal in the petitions are inconsistent. It is to be noted that the finding in M.V.O.P. No.711 of 2003 is subsequent to the finding in O.P. No.137 of 2003. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is that when once the incident happened due to the fault of the petitioner himself, the claim cannot be maintained. This is a fact, which has to be decided only after determining which of the findings have to be accepted. 6. Therefore, the orders in both the petitions are set aside and both the matters are remanded to III Additional District Judge, Warangal, for fresh disposal in accordance with law by passing a common order as to the cause of the incident and negligence. The lower Tribunal shall also consider whether if there is negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, who is the petitioner if the compensation can be denied to him and also to the minor children. The III Additional District Judge, Warangal, is directed to dispose of the cases within three months by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence. No costs. _____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 09, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in one week. //B.O.// BSB