M/S.New India Assurance Company ... vs V.Sreeramulu Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1874 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1340 of 2014


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.88 of

2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional District Judge, Kurnool and the respondents are the

petitioner and first respondent in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents by praying

the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor

Vehicle Accident occurred on 16.12.2005.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 16.12.2005 the petitioner

and one K.Sudhakar and one Lokesh engaged an auto bearing

No.AP 21 X T/R 5150 in order to go to K.C.Canal. After taking bath VGKRJ MACMA 1340 of 2014 Page 2 of 9 Dt: 12.04.2023

in the canal, while they were returning on NH-7 road and when they

reached near Eenadu Office, the driver of the said auto drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost

control over the vehicle, resulting which the auto turned turtle, as a

result of which, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and the

petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident dated 16.12.2005 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP 21 X T 5150 by its driver, resulting injuries to the petitioner?

 VGKRJ                                               MACMA 1340 of 2014
Page 3 of 9                                         Dt: 12.04.2023




 ii.    Whether      the   petitioner   is   entitled   to   any

compensation, if so, from which of the respondents and to what extent?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. On behalf

of 2nd respondent RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to

Ex.B4 were marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.32,500/- to the claimant towards

compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/ Insurance

company filed the present appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

              Whether   the   Order     of   Tribunal   needs      any
              interference?
 VGKRJ                                             MACMA 1340 of 2014
Page 4 of 9                                       Dt: 12.04.2023




11.     POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that on 16.12.2005 the petitioner

and one K.Sudhakar and one Lokesh engaged an auto bearing

No.AP 21 X T/R 5150 in order to go to K.C.Canal. After taking bath

in the canal, while they were returning on NH-7 road and when they

reached near Eenadu Office, the driver of the said auto drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost

control over the vehicle, resulting which the auto turned turtle, as a

result of which, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and he was

shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. First respondent

is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the crime

vehicle and both the respondents are jointly liable to pay the claim.

12. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the claim petitioner

himself examined as PW1. He is the injured and eye witness to the

accident. His evidence clearly goes to show about the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Crime vehicle/ auto, in which the

petitioner was travelling. The claim petitioner also got marked

Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2 attested

copy of charge sheet. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 VGKRJ MACMA 1340 of 2014 Page 5 of 9 Dt: 12.04.2023

and Ex.A2 clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the auto, in which the petitioner was travelling at the time of

accident, fell down and sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal

also given the same finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere

with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner got

examined the doctor as PW2. PW2 deposed in his evidence about

the treatment given by him to the claimant with regard to the leg

injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. PW2 also

deposed that the petitioner cannot walk for long distance and he

cannot squat and he is having restriction of the movements of about

30 degrees and he is having disability of 10 to 15% which is partial

in nature. In order to prove the claim, the petitioner also relied on

Ex.A3 certified copy of wound certificate. As seen from Ex.A3, there

are no grievous injuries and the injuries sustained by the petitioner

are only simple injuries. Taking into consideration the nature of

injuries, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly

income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/-. As per schedule II, the VGKRJ MACMA 1340 of 2014 Page 6 of 9 Dt: 12.04.2023

appropriate multiplier would be '15' and the loss of future earnings

can be assessed as Rs.22,500/- (Rs.15,000/- x 15 x 10/100 =

Rs.22,500/-. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal granted an amount

of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of future earnings. Therefore, there is

no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal and

the petitioner also not preferred any appeal against the said finding.

In total, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.32,500/- to

the petitioner towards compensation. There is no need to interfere

with the said quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

14. The main contention of the second respondent/ Insurance

Company is that the driver of offending vehicle is not having any

valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the

auto was also not having fitness certificate and permit to ply on the

road. In order to prove the same, the second respondent examined

the Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office as RW2. As per

the evidence of RW2, the crime vehicle did not contain permit and

fitness certificate as on the date of accident and there was no

driving licence to the driver of auto. Here in the present case, the

first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle was set exparte. It VGKRJ MACMA 1340 of 2014 Page 7 of 9 Dt: 12.04.2023

is the bounden duty of the first respondent to approach the Court

and produce the driving licence of driver of crime vehicle, but she

failed to do so. Here the crime vehicle is insured with 2nd

respondent and the policy is also on force. Hence the petitioner is a

third party. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the 2nd

respondent/ Insurance company is directed to pay the total claim of

Rs.32,500/- to the claimant at first instance, later recover the same

from respondent No.1 by filing Execution Petition without filing

independent suit, since first respondent is the owner of the offending

vehicle at the time of accident.

15. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, by modifying the order

dated 08.04.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.88 of 2006 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Kurnool. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.32,500/- with interest @7.5% p.a., from the

date of petition, till the date of payment. The 2nd respondent/

Insurance Company is directed to pay the claim amount, within one

month from the date of this judgment, to the claimant at first

instance and later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing VGKRJ MACMA 1340 of 2014 Page 8 of 9 Dt: 12.04.2023

an Execution Petition and without filing any independent suit. On

such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along

with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated: 12.04.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 1340 of 2014
Page 9 of 9                              Dt: 12.04.2023






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1340 of 2014



                          12.04.2023

sj