Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs K. Ram Reddy And Another on 13 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2007 in O.P.No.119 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'The Tribunal'), the appellant/Insurance Company, who is respondent No.2 in the said O.P., preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P.No.119 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, as compensation to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed appellant and respondent No.1 to deposit the said amount jointly and severally.
3. Respondent No.1/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. The appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal disputing the liability.
2
SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008
4. Heard Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.
5. The facts of the case are that on 10.12.2001, while respondent No.1 and one Mohd. Rafiq were travelling on a scooter bearing No.AP 22/912 from Thimmareddypally to Mahbubnagar and on the way of Thirumalkucha Thanda, H/o Chinnadarpally, the driver of the tractor and trailer No.AP 22 T 9217 and 9216 drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter, due to which they fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Respondent No.1 filed O.P.No.119 of 2003 and Mohd.Rafiq filed O.P.No.120 of 2003 against the owner and insurer of the said Tractor and Trailer claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- each due to the injuries sustained by them.
6. The Tribunal on considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, passed a common award dated 13.04.2007 in O.P.Nos.119 of 2003 and 120 of 2003 finding that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and the Tribunal directed the appellant and respondent No.1-owner of the tractor to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each to respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner in O.P.No.120 of 2023, jointly and 3 SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008 severally. Challenging the Award passed in O.P.No.119 of 2003, respondent No.2/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
7. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle, which is a violation of conditions of the policy, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the Tribunal has fixed the liability on both owner and insurer jointly and severally and awarded just compensation, which needs no interference by this Court.
9. With regard to the manner in which the accident took place, a perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 22 T 9217 and 9216 by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are eye witnesses and injured persons, coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A-1 and A-12, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent 4 SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008 driving of the driver of the Tractor and answered the issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor resulting in injuries to the petitioner.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the medical bills, the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Insofar as the liability is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant specifically contended that the driver of the Tractor was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and as there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and without considering the same, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the appellant-insurer and respondent No.2-owner of the Tractor jointly and severally.
5
SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008
12. There is no dispute that by the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant and due to disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, appellant stating that their compnay is not liable to pay compensation. In that regard, it is relevant to apt the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 30 of the order held as follows:
"30. The State Government has to maintain a register to motor vehicles under Rule 45 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight, unladen weight, etc. The Central Government has the power to frame rules under Section 27, inter alia, regarding minimum qualification, forms, and contents of the licences, etc. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the definition of "Light motor vehicle" under Section 2(21) of the Act includes transport vehicle of the class and weight defined therein. The transport vehicle or omnibus would be light motor vehicle, gross vehicle weight of which, and also a motor car or tractor or roadroller, unladen weight of which, does not exceed 7500 kg, and can be driven by holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicle."
13. In view of the above decision, this Court deems it appropriate that there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal regarding the aspect of fixing the liability on the part of the insurer and owner of the Tractor jointly and severally and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
1 (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 6 SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2007 in O.P.No.119 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J DATE: 13.12.2023 SAI 7 SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2008 Date:13.12.2023 SAI