IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2439 of 2008 Between: United India Insurance Co.Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa … Appellant/R.2 And: Juturu Chinna Reddivari Varalakshmi & 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2439 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.06.2007 passed in MVOP No.584 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein, the claim of the first respondent herein, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer. None appeared for the respondents and no representation is made on their behalf on the last date of adjournment i.e., 06.07.2010 and even today. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased husband-Juturu Chinna Reddivari Aravindakumar Reddy. The respondents 3 and 4 herein are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimant, on 06.02.2004 the deceased was driving the jeep bearing No.AP 9 Q 1311 from Tirupati to Jutur and when the vehicle reached near Nannepalli cross road near Kadapa, a lorry bearing No.TN 28 F 4663 driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, without blowing horn and without applying head lights came and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the deceased who was driving the jeep died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.26 of 2004 was registered by Chinna Chowk PS against the driver of the lorry. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 33 years and was working as Manager under a contractor T.Ramanjaneya Reddy of Nandyal and earning Rs.9,000/- per month besides drawing DA of Rs.2,000/-. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant-insurer filed a counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. The respondents 3 and 4 herein filed memo claiming to be the dependents on the deceased and praying for an award in their favour as well. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the death of the deceased Juturu Chinnaredivari Aravindakumar Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 06.02.2004 at 4.45 p.m. at Nannepalli cross roads, Kadapa due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN 28 F 4663 of the first respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the claimant. The mother of the deceased was examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, directing that the claimant/ wife shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and the respondents 3 and 4/parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.1,25,000/- each. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that as seen from the contents of FIR Ex.A.1, the deceased, who was driving the jeep, was equally responsible for the accident, as he was also driving the jeep rashly and negligently and the Tribunal ignored the same and erroneously fastened the entire liability on the driver of the lorry. 9. FIR Ex.A.1 was registered based on the complaint given by the inmate of the jeep, who also sustained injuries in the accident. In Ex.A.1 it was clearly stated that the deceased was driving the jeep at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without dimming and dipping of the lights and the lorry came in the opposite direction at high speed and both the drivers could not control the speed of the vehicles, which resulted in the accident. Thus, as per the contents of Ex.A.1 FIR, which was registered immediately after the accident, the deceased who was the driver of the jeep was also responsible for the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep. It is no doubt true that after investigation, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry, who survived. The fact, however remains that as per the earliest version recorded in the FIR, the deceased who was the driver of the jeep has also contributed to the accident by his rash and negligent driving and unable to control the speed of the jeep. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability on the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal ought to have given due weight and consideration to the contents of FIR Ex.A.1 and fasten a portion of the liability on the deceased also, who was the driver of the jeep. In the circumstances, it is considered that ends of justice would be met by apportioning the liability at 30% on the deceased-driver of the jeep and 70% on the driver of the lorry. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer did not seriously dispute the age, income of the deceased and also the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, it is held that the first respondent- claimant and the respondents 3 and 4 are entitled for 70% out of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- x 70%) as compensation and the appellant-insurer is liable to pay the said 70% liability i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Out of Rs.3,50,000/- the claimant-wife is entitled for 50% and the parents i.e., respondents 3 and 4 are entitled for the remaining amount equally. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.07.2010 bss