Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 297 (AP)

Bondugula Samyuktha Devi v. T. Sreedhar Reddy

2004-03-11

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT who filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of her eldest son in an accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent while driving the jeep bearing No. APQ-4365 belonging to second respondent and insured with third respondent, examined herself as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses and marked Exhibits a-1 to A-21 in support of her case. First respondent, who filed a counter alleging that the deceased, but not he that was driving the jeep at the time of accident, examined himself as R. W. 2 and his wife as R. W. 3 but did not adduce any documentary evidence on his behalf. Second respondent, the owner of Jeep involved in the accident and who is the husband of the appellant and who supported the case of appellant, examined himself as R. W. 1 and marked exhibits B-1 to b-9. Third respondent who filed a counter putting appellant to proof of the allegations in the claim petition, did not adduce evidence either oral or documentary. ( 2 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal having held that first respondent while driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident resulting in the death of the son of the appellant, passed an award for rs. 3,00,000/-, as claimed by the appellant, only against respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally, but did not say anything about the liability of first respondent. So claimant filed this C. M. A. with a prayer to pass an award against first respondent also. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for appellant. There is no representation on behalf of first respondent, though he put in appearance through a counsel. So claimant filed this C. M. A. with a prayer to pass an award against first respondent also. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for appellant. There is no representation on behalf of first respondent, though he put in appearance through a counsel. ( 4 ) THOUGH Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, it passed an award, for the entire amount claimed by the appellant, only against respondents 2 and 3 i. e. , owner and insurer of the jeep involved in the accident but did not fix the liability of the first respondent and so the point for consideration is whether a claimant in a motor Vehicle Accident claim, can be said to be aggrieved by the Tribunal not making the driver liable, but passes an award for the entire claim against owner and insurer of the vehicle that caused the accident? ( 5 ) IT is well known that in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident is not a necessary party. Though the driver is not made a party, the owner is vicariously liable to pay the compensation payable to claimant (s), under the theory of vicarious liability. ( 6 ) IN view of Ex. A-14 insurance policy, third respondent insurer also is made liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellant and that award became final. ( 7 ) SINCE the appellant filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of her son but not for punishing the first respondent for his causing the accident and since the main object in constituting special tribunals in Motor Accident cases is to see that claimants in motor vehicle accident cases receive just compensation for the injuries or death of the victims, and for that reason the Parliament thought it fit to make third party risk compulsorily insurable and made the insurer liable to pay the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, and since appellant can recover the entire compensation from the insurer as per the award of the Tribunal, appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the Tribunal not passing an award against the first respondent, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. ( 8 ) AS per Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, only a person aggrieved by the award of Claims Tribunal can prefer an appeal. Since appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by non-passing of an award, by the Tribunal, against first respondent, I hold that this appeal is not maintainable. Point is answered accordingly. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.