HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. Nos.3558 OF 2002, 3562 of 2003 & 1252 of 2003. Dated 22-7-2010 C.M.A. No.3558 OF 2002: Between: The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Manager, Kothagudem, Khammam District. …Appellant. And: G. Saraswathi and others. …Respondents. C.M.A. No.3562 OF 2003: Between: The Chief Transport Officer, M/s Singareni collieries Co., Ltd., Kothagudem. …Appellant. And: Meera Chandrasekhar and others. …Respondents. C.M.A. No.1252 OF 2003: Between: The Chief Transport Officer, M/s Singareni collieries Co., Ltd., Kothagudem. …Appellant. And: G.Saraswathi and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. Nos.3558 OF 2002, 3562 of 2003 & 1252 of 2003. COMMON JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Khammam, in O.P.Nos.12 and 253 of 1998 respectively, on 18th March, 2002, the appeals in C.M.A.Nos. 3558 of 2002, 3562 of 2003 and 1252 of 2003 respectively have been filed by the appellants. In view of the connected C.M.A.Nos.3510, 3564 and 3555 of 2002, which are already disposed of on 7th November, 2008 as per the judgment of this Court reported in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. G.SARASWATHI ([1]), these present three appeals are disposed of on the same lines. The appellant in C.M.A.Nos.3562 of 2003 and 1252 of 2003 is the Chief Transport Officer, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Kothagudem who is the owner and the appellant in C.M.A.No.3558 of 2002 is the United India Insurance Company Limited. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Though all these three appeals arise out of the separate awards passed by the District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam on 18-3-2002 in O.P.Nos.12 of 1998 and 253 of 1998 but they arose out of one and the same incident and the issue involved in all these O.P.s as well as the C.M.As are one and the same. Therefore, they are taken up together for disposal by this common Judgment. The brief facts of the case leading to filing the O.Ps. as well as the C.M.As. are as follows: On 5-5-1995, one Bhavani Shankar (herein after referred to as “the deceased”) along with his family members, started at Kothagudem to go to Hyderabad for medical checkup in the company car bearing No.APH 1913 driven by the 1st respondent, and by the time the car reached near scene of offence at about 5.30 A.M., the 1st respondent-driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No.AEK-5054, due to which, the deceased died instantaneously. In this connection, a case in Crime No.87/95 was registered by the police for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. Hence, the claimants filed O.P.Nos.12/98 and 253/98 seeking compensation. 1st respondent-driver filed a memo adopting the counter of the 2nd respondent-owner. 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the averments in the petition. The accident occurred was only due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the lorry driver, who did not respond to the tipper signals. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter denying all the averments made in the petition. The accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased and there was no fault on the part of the 1st respondent-driver. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, in all the O.Ps., the following points were framed before the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? To substantiate the case of the claimants in O.P.No.12 of 1998, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked on behalf of the claimants and R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 toB.4 were marked on behalf of the respondents. In O.P.No.253 of 1998, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. The Tribunal, considering the evidence both oral and documentary passed the impugned award attributing rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver and held, basing on Ex.B.1 that the vehicle was taken on chargeable basis by the 2nd respondent-owner and as such, the insurer could not escape its liability in which case, the insurer was at liberty to recover the amounts paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent-owner had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. These claim petitions are allowed making all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. C.M.A.No.3558 of 2002 is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy absolving it from liability and also contending that the 2nd respondent being a Central Government Company could satisfy the awards to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Of course, while contending that the compensation claimed and awarded was excessive, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants had not assigned any reasonable grounds therefor warranting interference by this Court. The Senior Assistant of R.3-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2 who testify, based on Ex.B.1 that the Chief Engineer of 2nd respondent-company utilized the car on chargeable basis. In such a case, the Chief Engineer- 2nd respondent is liable to pay user charges at the prescribed rates as the vehicle is being utilized for his personal purpose. Same is the contention of the insurer also. However, it cannot be said that there is any violation of any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy based on Ex.B.1 alone. In the circumstances, the amount awarded by the Tribunal can not be found fault with it on its directing the insurer to pay the compensation in the first instance by giving liberty to recover the same from the owner – R2. However, it is made clear that this Court does not express any adverse opinion as to the right of the insurer to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle, as such, the parties are bound to pay the award of compensation in question. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the legal pleas raised by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that these appeals are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the C.M.As. are dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice B.N.RAO NALLA Dated 22-7-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. Nos.3558 OF 2002, 3562 of 2003 & 1252 of 2003. Dated 22-7-2010 [1] 2009 –ALT-3- 278