IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1132 of 2006 Between: Ummagani Sammaiah .. Appellant AND Choopari Rajalingu and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.69 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 07-03-2006. The appellant said to be aged 45 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as Fisherman, boarded APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8356 along with his son Ramesh on 21-08- 2004. The bus stopped at CCC cross roads at about 12.00 noon to enable the passengers to get down and lorry No.GJ-16-T-8667, driven rashly and negligently in trying to overtake the bus, dashed to the right hand of the appellant, which was kept outside the window, in the attempt of the lorry to avoid a scooter coming in the opposite direction and the bus, which just moved. Though the appellant underwent treatment and a surgery in the hospital of Dr. D. Vijaya Bhaskar, the fracture left a permanent disability in the right hand and the appellant, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in total under various heads of damages from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. While the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimant and put him to strict proof of a valid driving licence for the lorry driver, fitness certificate for the lorry and insurance of the vehicle. The driver of the bus is responsible for the accident as the bus being moved caused the injury and the appellant in fact was not permitted to keep his hand outside the window. The driver of the bus and the APSRTC are, hence, proper and necessary parties and compensation claimed also is excessive. The insurer, therefore, desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of accident, the absence of necessary parties and the entitlement of the claimant to any compensation. It examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 during the course of enquiry. The insurer obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to defend itself. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly noting that the appellant did not stick to the version in the claim petition about the manner of accident and claimed in his evidence that when the lorry dashed the RTC bus from behind, he fell on the front seat from the last seat and sustained injuries. The Tribunal also noted that the investigating officer found under Ex.A.3-Charge sheet that the appellant kept his right hand outside the window of the bus when the left door of the lorry touched his hand resulting in the fracture. The Tribunal further noted that it was an act of the appellant himself in keeping his hand outside the window when the lorry did not touch at all and in spite of warnings, the appellant kept his hand outside the window. The Tribunal, therefore, felt that the driver of the bus ought to have cautioned the passenger from keeping his hand outside the bus, which he could observe from the rear view mirror and the appellant did not act prudently in not withdrawing his hand from outside the window on observing the lorry. Hence, the Tribunal concluded that the contributory negligence of the appellant and the driver of the bus resulted in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal consequently held the driver of the bus and the APSRTC to be necessary parties and dismissed the claim. The appellant challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have granted the entire compensation as claimed when the lorry driver was found guilty of an offence for causing the accident by the independent statutory investigating agency, which filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the appellant desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, requested that the impugned award being clear about the necessity to have the driver of the bus and the APSRTC as parties to the claim for a comprehensive adjudication of the questions in controversy, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to enable the appellant to take necessary steps in this regard. Learned counsel for the insurer, while reiterating the absence of its liability to pay any compensation, has no serious objection for the matter being remanded for impleadment of the driver of the bus and APSRTC for determination of their liability to pay any compensation. It should also be noted that while the Tribunal held the existence of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and the driver of the bus, it did not rule out the contributory negligence for the incident on the part of the lorry driver also, and therefore, it will not be appropriate to express any opinion herein on the total absence of any responsibility for the lorry driver for the incident, which question should be left open to be determined by the Tribunal on merits in accordance with law, more so, as the matter is being considered for remand. The request for remand needs to be viewed favourably as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation intended to provide succor to the victims of motor accidents and a too technical view on the absence of diligence of the appellant in not impleading the driver of the bus and the APSRTC at the initial stage need not be taken. Therefore, the award dated 07-03-2006 in O.P.No.69 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is set aside and O.P.No.69 of 2005 is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh determination in accordance with law on merits after giving every reasonable opportunity to the parties to place any further oral and documentary evidence they wish to place before the Tribunal and also to the appellant to take steps, if he so desires and is so advised, to implead the driver of the bus and ARSRTC as parties to the claim, which request shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law after notice to the proposed parties. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2011 Ksn