THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2618 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/Insurance Company aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.06.2000 passed in O.P.No.22 of 1996 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 30.12.1993 at about 10.30 p.m., one DCM Toyota Van bearing No.AET-7775, which the petitioner owns, started from Chegunta towards Hyderabad and at about 1.30 a.m. during the intervening night of 30/31.12.1993 when it reached Taidala Banda place on N.H.No.7, one lorry bearing No.AP-9T-579 came in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said Van, as a result of which, the said Van fell into a deep pit by the side of 2 the road near the place of the accident. The Van was in good condition before the accident, and due to the accident, it was completely damaged. After the accident, the Van was sent to the Mechanic Garage for repairs. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. seeking damages of Rs.50,000/-.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex- parte.
5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition.
6. PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A9 to prove the petitioner's case. No oral evidence was adduced, but marked Ex.B1-copy of policy on behalf of the respondents.
7. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded damages of Rs.14,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to 3 be paid by the respondents. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to see that, as per the settled principles of law, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to a sum of Rs.6,000/- only. The Tribunal failed to see that the subject policy is an Act policy and the 1st respondent has not paid any extra premium to cover any extra liability more than the amount of Rs.6,000/- as prescribed by Section 147(2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.14,000/-. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, rightly awarded damages and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. With regard to the quantum of damages, the petitioner stated that on account of the accident, the DCM Van 4 was completely damaged and for repairing the same, he has incurred Rs.50,000/-. To prove the same, the petitioner has filed Exs.A5 to A9. As per Ex.B1-copy of the Insurance Policy, the 1st respondent is the lorry's owner and the same is insured with the 2nd respondent. The Insurance Policy is valid as on the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the damages can be awarded for more than Rs.6,000/-. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GAURI SHANKER SHARMA AND ANOTHER 1, wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the statutory liability is fixed which is the minimum liability for Rs.6,000/- but the liability of the Insurance Company is more than Rs.6,000/- in respect of damages to the vehicle. The principle laid down in this case shows that the liability of the insurance company towards damages of the vehicle is more than Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the aforesaid judgment, awarded damages of Rs.14,000/-. But, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company 1 1985 ACJ 734 5 submits that as per the conditions of the Insurance Policy, the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the damages towards the vehicle in question is concerned is only to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. R.NARAYANA REDDY 2, wherein this Court, while modifying the order of the Tribunal, observed as follows :-
"Accordingly, I modified the order of the Tribunal limiting the liability of the insurance company to pay the damages towards damages caused to the respondent No.1's tractor to an extent of Rs.6,000/- only alone and the respondent No.1 is entitled to recover the remaining amount from the respondent No.2. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. The appeal is allowed as indicated above."
12. In the above judgment, the Tribunal awarded damages of Rs.27,000/-, but this Court reduced the damages from Rs.27,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. The present case stands on the same footing to that of the above case of this Court. In the 2 LAWS (APH)-2000-2-11 6 present case also, the Tribunal has erroneously granted an amount of Rs.14,000/-, and the same has to be reduced to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, following the above judgment of this Court, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the damages of Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.14,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at 12 % per annum, which needs no interference by this Court.
14. As seen from the cause title, the case against respondent No.2 was dismissed for default on 06.09.2011. The dismissal against respondent No.2/owner is of no consequence for the determination of just, fair and reasonable quantum of damages against the Insurance Company in view of the judgment of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma. 3 Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay damages of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner.
15. Therefore, the order dated 16.06.2000 passed by the Tribunal is modified, and the Insurance Company is directed to pay damages of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand 3 2001(1) ALT 495 DB 7 only) to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to recover the remaining amount from the 2nd respondent herein i.e., owner of the vehicle.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 08 .11.2023 Prv