Bandyala Gouthami v. P.Srinivas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

C.M.A.Nos.482 of 2001 and 2160 of 2001

C.M.A.No.482 of 2001

Between: Bandyala Gouthami and another ..Appellants AND P. Srinivas and 6 others .. Respondents C.M.A.No.2160 of 2001 Between: Bandyala Anthaiah @ Anthy Reddy and 2 others ..Appellants AND P. Srinivas and 5 others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT:

The award in O.P.No.483 of 1998 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 12-01-2001 led the petitioners therein to file C.M.A.No.482 of 2001 and respondents 5 to 7 therein to file C.M.A.No.2160 of 2001.

The factual background for the appeals is that B. Basava Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rebbena Mandal, Adilabad District, was on patrolling duty and was going on the motor cycle Hero Honda No.AP 9P 1720 along with Head Constable 271. The van No.AP 5U 551 driven by the 1^st respondent, owned by the 2^nd respondent, and insured with the 3^rd respondent, came in opposite direction rashly and negligently and dashed against the motorcycle. Basava Reddy was seriously injured and was shifted to Government Hospital, Bellampalli and died on 6-4-1998 while undergoing treatment. The police registered Cr.No.42 of 1998 against the 1^st respondent and prosecuted him. The 1^st appellant in C.M.A.No.482 of 2001 is the wife and the appellants in C.M.A.No.2160 of 2001 are the parents and brother of Basava Reddy and the 2^nd appellant in C.M.A.No.482 of 2001 is claimed to be the adopted son of Basava Reddy and the 1^st appellant therein. The appellants in C.M.A.No.482 of 2001 sought for a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest and costs. The owner of the van contested the claim contending that there was no rash and negligent driving by the 1^st respondent and that the vehicle was insured with respondents 3 and 4. The insurer, represented by respondents 3 and 4, contested the claim denying the claims of the claimants and contending that the accident was not reported to it by the owner of the vehicle. While the insurance of the vehicle is admitted, the negligence of the deceased was stated to be the cause for the accident and the compensation claimed was stated to be excessive.