IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1007 of 2007 DATE:16.11.2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited …… Petitioner And Kodithyal Anil Kumar and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1007 of 2007 ORDER: The insurance company filed this appeal questioning award of compensation of Rs.1,07,600/- to the claimant/injured in M.V.O.P.No.587 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal. There is no dispute about factum of accident which took place on 14.09.2004, in which lorry bearing No.AP 29 T 1707 dashed against Tempo trax bearing No.AP 36 V 9117 in which the petitioner sustained injuries while he was travelling in tempo trax. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant’s counsel stated that he is not disputing the quantum. 2) The appellant’s counsel contended that there were 18 persons travelling in the tempo trax, whereas capacity of the tempo trax is 12 persons and that because of discomfort of driver of tempo trax due to over load, the accident occurred and that there is contributory negligence on the part of driver of tempo trax in this case. The claimant claimed compensation only in respect of insured and insurer relating to the lorry. Criminal case record covered by Exs.A-1 and A-2 also shows that the lorry driver was at fault and that the lorry driver was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving. Evidence of P.W-1/claimant also goes to show that the lorry driver was at fault and not tempo trax driver. Simply because there was overload in the tempo trax, from that fact alone it cannot be concluded that it contributed negligence for driver of tempo trax to cause this accident. Overload of the vehicle may be a ground for prosecuting driver of that vehicle for contravention of the penal provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act. That cannot be ipso facto taken as a ground for non-suing or reducing compensation awarded to the claimants. There is no evidence to show that due to overloading of tempo trax, it’s driver was inconvenienced and it resulted in the accident. In the absence of any positive evidence before the Tribunal, I rule out any contributory negligence on the part of tempo trax driver. 3) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 16, 2010 ksh