Allowed

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, v. Polavarapu Chandra Rao

Telangana HC6 Feb 2012CMA/646/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation petition for non-joinder of the scooterist. The Court held the Tribunal erred, allowing the claim without the scooterist and remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The finding of non-maintainability on grounds of non-joinder is set aside; the matter is remitted for fresh disposal.

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs Polavarapu… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

CMA.No.646 of 2003

¶7

Between:

¶8

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

Polavarapu Chandra Rao & others.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

This Court made the following:

¶14

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶15

CMA.No.646 of 2003

¶16

JUDGMENT:-

¶17

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant against the award, dated 03.02.2001, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MVOP.No.363 of 1998.

¶18

I have heard Sri K.V. Surbahmanyanarusu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri K. Saraf Reddy, learned counsel appearing for APSRTC (for short, “the Corporation”). The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident occurred at about 4.20 p.m, on 18.03.1998 near GITAM Engineering College, Visakhapatnam. His version is that he was proceeding as a pillion rider of Scooter bearing No.AP 31C 4328 driven by his friend V. Venkateswara Rao on the left side of the road. When they reached Sagarnagar, the Corporation bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 3539 driven at fast, speed, in the rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed the Scooter, as a result, he and his friend Venkateswara Rao, who was driving his Scooter, fell down and received severe injuries. In respect of the injuries sustained by him, he filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-.

¶19

In the course of it’s counter, the Corporation contended that the accident was due to the fault of the scooterist but, not on account of rash and neglignet driving of the driver of the bus.

¶20

The parties went on trial on the issues whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3539 and whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for any compensation. During the trial, before the learned Tribunal, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellant/claimant and Exs.A1 to A56 were marked. Whereas, RWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent/Corporation and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

¶21

The learned Tribunal, without recording a specific finding as to at whose fault the accident occurred, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant on the ground that the same is not maintainable for not impleading the Scooterist as one of the respondents. The learned Tribunal, however, stated that it also found that the driver of the bus was not at fault. The way in which the findings were recorded by the learned Tribunal clearly shows that the reason for dismissal of the claim petition is that the same is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party, namely; the person, who was driving the Scooter at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal, since it dismssed the claim petition on the ground that it was not maintainable, did not answer the other issues though incidentally it recorded a finding that the appellant/claimant failed to establish permanent disability sustained by him.

¶22

In this appeal, the appellant/claimant filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to receive the award passed by the successor of the District Judge/Claims Tribunal in MOP.No.100 of 2002, filed by one O. Venkateswara Rao, who was driving the Scooter and the said claim arose out of the very same accident.

¶23

A perusal of the award in MOP No.100 of 2002 reveals that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal recorded a specific finding that the observations made by his predecessor in his order in the earlier MOP.No.363 of 1998 against which the present appeal is filed are not

¶24

binding on him and after elaborately discussing the evidence, he recorded a specific finding that the Scooterist was not at all at fault and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and recorded the reasons for fastening the liability on the Corporation to pay compensation to the claimant therein.

¶25

In this appeal, I only took notice of the latter award passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by the person, who was driving the Scooter and I am not inclined to pass any order on the petition, since in the instant case, the learned Tribunal did not answer any issues specifically except holding that the petition is not maintainable for nonjoinder of the Scooterist as one of the parties to the claim petition. Insofar as dismissing the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous. The learned Tribunal cannot compel the appellant/claimant to implead the Scooterist as one of the parties to the claim pettion, the reason being the appellant/claimant come forward with a specific plea that the accidnet was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus, but not on account of the fault of the person, who was driving the Scooter. Since it is the specific contention, it is no longer obligatory on the part of the appellant to implead the Scooterist as one of the parties to the claim petition. Having regard to the rival contentions, the Tribunal is under a duty to make a decision basing on the pleadings and evidence on either side as to who was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal therefore had fallen into error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of the person, who was driving the Scooter at the relevant time. The said finding is liable to be set aside in this appeal.

¶26

For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the claim petition is maintainable even in the absence of the person, who was driving the Scooter bearing No.AP 31C 4328, as one of the parties to the claim petition and the finding on the said aspect by the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous. The order passed by the learned Tribunal in

¶27

MOP.No.363 of 1998 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal within a period of three months, after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.

¶28

With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶30

Date: 06.02.2012 ES

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, v. Polavarapu Chandra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, v. Polavarapu Chandra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kantayapalem Ramesh

C.Kusumakumari Vs a.Venkatasubbaiah

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Kunduri Venkamma

M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Maddala Kotaiah

The Manager Vs K.Anil Kumar, S/o.Kishan, Aged 6 Years, Minor, Under

Kumari Yasmin Vs Mr.K. Surender Reddy