M/S Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Kompella Jaya Sri
2021 Latest Caselaw 4689 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: M.A.C.M.A.No.373 of 2021

                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                         ORDER

No      DATE
                                                                            Transferr
3.    17.11.2021   CPK, J & RNT, J                                          -ed to I/O
                                                                            folder
                                                                            before
                                    I.A.No.7 of 2021                        correction
                         The interim order granted on 30.7.2021                   MS

directing the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the entire decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs is extended by another six (6) weeks from today.

I.A.Nos.4 & 5 of 2021

As seen from the record, already a direction was given by this Court on 30.7.2021 itself permitting the two minors to withdraw their proportionate share of compensation with proportionate interest and costs on their attaining majority.

In view of the above, it may not be necessary to pass fresh orders in these applications.

It is made clear that the withdrawal made pursuant to deposit of money by the appellant shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

___________ CPK, J

___________ RNT, J I.A.No.6 of 2021 The facts in the case are that, on 06.07.2013 at about 6.00 AM, the deceased along with two other passengers boarded an Auto bearing No. AP 37 TA 8030 at Tanuku and when they crossed S. Illindalaparru Village, a Tractor bearing No. AP 37 AA 8030 with Trailer bearing No. AP 37 G 8930 driven by one Nageswara Rao, in a rash and negligent manner, resulted in right corner of the Trailer hitting the Auto. As a result of which, the resin cloth of the auto was cut, and the iron rod of the auto stuck over the right temporal bone of the deceased leading to fracture of right side skull leading to his death enroute to the hospital.

The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, awarded compensation of Rs.80,28,553/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the said Order, the Insurance Company preferred the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for appellant, this Court vide Order, dated 30.07.2021, directed the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs. Thereafter, another Order came to be passed on 27.08.2021, wherein the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were declared as majors. Thereafter, the present I.A.No.6 of 2021 came to be filed in the month of October, 2021 by the appellant/Insurance Company requesting the Court not to allow the claimants to withdraw the amount to be deposited by the appellant.

Smt A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that in case on hand, the Tractor bearing No.AP-37-AA-0958 was involved in the accident, which was not insured with the petitioner/appellant, and only the Trailer was insured with the appellant. She submits that the Trailer attached to the Tractor has no locomotive and it cannot be moved on its own unless drawn by the Tractor. Hence, pleads that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the acts of the driver of the alleged Tractor. In support of her claim, she relied upon a judgment reported in Gunti Devaiah and others vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others [2004(1) ACC 443].

The same is opposed by Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, contending that the application itself is not maintainable in view of the orders passed earlier. He further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, efforts should have been taken for preferring an appeal before the higher Court and not by way of the present application seeking modification of the order.

Though, the liability of the Insurance Company was raised in the grounds of appeal, but the same was not argued at the time of arguing the stay application, because of which the same is not reflected in the order, dated 30.7.2021. Long thereof i.e., in the month of September, 2021, the present I.A. came to be filed seeking to modify the Order, dated 30.07.2021.

It is to be noted here that learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in Gunti Devaiah and others vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others [2004 (1) ACC 443 = 2004 ACJ 1881], in support of the plea. The said judgment was considered in paragraph No.32 of the Order in MVOP.No.51 of 2014, and held as under:

"32. As noted above, the 1st respondent Nageswara Rao was the driver of the Tractor, and the 2nd Peddi Raju is owner of the Tractor-cum- Trailer and he insured the Trailer with the 3rd respondent M/s.Oriental Insurance Company. The counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company had vehemently argued that though the Trailer was registered, the Tractor was not registered and as such, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company cannot be fastened with any liability. He relied on the judgment of Gunti Devayya and others Vrs. Vaka Peddireddy, 2004 Accident Claims Journal at Page 1881 where the Trailer was not insured but the Tractor was insured. But, it was held that the Trailer is not self propelling vehicle and it has to be necessarily fastened to a Tractor or other Motor Vehicle. When the driver of the Tractor/Motor Vehicle carrying the Trailer commits accident, i.e., Trailer hits the injured or deceased, the negligence can be attributed to the Tractor driver and consequently, the liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company with which the Tractor was registered".

It is also to be noted here that identical issue came up for consideration in New India Insurance Company vs. Nunna Veera Venkata Satyanarayana [2012 Accident Claims Journal at Page 907 (APHC)]. It was also a case where the Trailer was insured but the Tractor was not insured. After considering the scope of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules therein, the High Court held that the Tractor with which the Trailer is propelled, is liable, if an accident occurs due to negligence of the driver of the Tractor. Therefore, the Court held that even if the Tractor is not insured and if the Trailer is insured, the Insurance Company with which the Trailer is insured is liable to pay compensation.

Having regard to the fact that the case on hand is identical to one referred to above, we feel that the interim order granted by us on 30.07.2021 directing the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the entire decretal amount warrants no interference.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed.

M.A.C.M.A.No.373 of 2021

List the appeal for hearing after Pongal Vacation, 2022.

___________ CPK, J

___________ RNT, J Note:-

Furnish C.C. tomorrow.

B/O MS