Dismissed

Ape Vintage Motor Auto Company v. Singarathi Srinivas

Telangana HC15 Dec 2014MACMA/4343/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal was filed by the company-respondent (Respondent No. 3) seeking to set aside the Motor Vehicles Tribunal award that fixed joint and several liability on the driver and hirer while exonerating the selling company. The court examined the counter-evidence and the quantum of compensation but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Ape Vintage Motor Auto Company Vs Singarathi Srinivas — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.4343 OF 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The second respondent among the three respondents filed this appeal impugning the award in M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2005 dated 14.09.2007, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, in the claim filed for Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 166 of M.V.Act, since awarded Rs.2,41,025/- with 7.5% p.a. interest against respondents 1 and 2 of the claim by the injured with 40% disability for the eye injury and loss of vision in the accident dated 11.06.2004 while he was coming home on his bicycle at about 8:30 P.M., the crime auto (new vehicle uninsured and at pre-registration stage in use) said to have been purchased from R.3 company by its dealer R.2 driven by R.1 while coming in opposite direction in his bicycle dashed, from which he sustained the injuries.

¶5

2. Heard. Perused the material on record.

¶6

3. Now, the points for consideration are:

¶7

i) Whether the award of the Tribunal fixing liability on claim petition respondents 1 and 2 by exonerating respondent No.3 is unsustainable and requires interference and if so with what observations?

¶8

ii) To what result?

¶9

4. POINT NO.1:

¶10

Respondent No.3 filed counter in the Tribunal stating that it was already sold to R.2. That is not in dispute by R.2 including from the evidence of R.W.1 the Managing Partner of R.2 dealer of R.3 company, but for to say the vehicle was unauthorisedly taken by R.1. There is no proof to say unauthorized like by theft, but for allowed. Once the vehicle is in use entrusted by R.2 to R.1 they cannot plead that the accident was

¶11

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver-R.1. The Tribunal therefrom rightly held that the liability of R.1 and R.2 is joint and several and R.3 cannot be made liable being the company for the vehicle already sold to R.2, which facts are not in dispute. From the evidence of R.W.1 of R.2 so far as even the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,41,025/- awarded by the Tribunal to the injured-claimant, aged 26 years by the accident dated 11.06.2004 concerned; even taken the earnings at Rs.3,300/- per month for the 40% disability Rs.1320/- x 12 x 17 it comes to Rs.2,69,280/- + medical expenses, transport charges, attendant charges, extra nourishment, loss of earnings further entitled, which may come to nearly Rs.3,00,000/- including bills for Rs.21,000/and odd. Thus, what the Tribunal awarded is no way excessive but for no cross objections of the claimant to enhance. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

¶12

5. POINT NO.2:

¶13

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand disposed of.

¶14

_______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶15

Date: 15^th December, 2014

¶16

PNV

Ape Vintage Motor Auto Company v. Singarathi Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ape Vintage Motor Auto Company v. Singarathi Srinivas

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 Company Limited, Vs Smt. Are Gangu Bai

Ponna Shankar Reddy Vs M/s. Ratna Solutions

P.Mukunda Reddy Vs P.Rukminamma

Kasula Shankaraiah (died per L.R.) Vs Sri E.Ramchandra Reddy

M/s.National Insurance Company Limited Vs K.Rajeswari

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs C. Kasthuri