Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. ... vs Naripeddi Aruna Kumari Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1951 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1503 of 2015


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in

M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole

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 section 166

(1) (C) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents

praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

towards compensation for the death of Naripeddi Nageswara

Rao in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 28.03.2012.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

                              2                             VGKR, J
                                                MACMA No.1503 of 2015

On 28.03.2012 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased

Nageswara Rao and other coolies were going to Kavali in a

tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27 TT 4000 and AP 26 TA

9706 of first respondent to bring husk and when the vehicle

reached near Yerra Vagu on NH-5 road near T.Naidupalem

village, the driver of the vehicle i.e., first respondent drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed,

resulting which he lost control over the vehicle, as a result,

the tractor turned turtle and fell in a side canal and both the

tractor and trailer were separated. In that accident the

deceased received multiple injuries and died on the spot. So,

the petitioner, who is the wife and legal representative of the

petitioner, claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards

compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter pleading that the deceased was

unauthorized passenger in the tractor and that the claimant

is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent

is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

                                 3                                 VGKR, J
                                                       MACMA No.1503 of 2015

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

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27 TT 4000 and AP 26 TA 9706 on 28.03.2012 at about 8.00 a.m. near Yerra bridge, T.Naidupalem on NH-5 road, Tangutur Mandal?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were

examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of

2nd respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1

and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal

has given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the

Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.4,41,000/- to the claimant

towards compensation.

                             4                              VGKR, J
                                                MACMA No.1503 of 2015

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/

Insurance company filed this appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

11. POINT :-

As per the finding of the Tribunal, the accident was

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27 TT 4000 and AP 26 TA

9706. The oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 coupled with

Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4

attested copy of charge sheet reveals that the accident was

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor

and trailer. On perusal of Ex.A2 attested copy of Post

Mortem certificate and Ex.A3 attested copy of Inquest report,

it reveals that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in

the accident. The learned Tribunal assigned valid and

cogent reasons to its finding on issue No.1. Therefore, there 5 VGKR, J MACMA No.1503 of 2015

are no grounds, much less valid grounds, to modify the

finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. Having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of

the considered view that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer,

which resulted the instantaneous death of the deceased.

12. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons granted

an amount of Rs.3,84,000/- to the petitioner towards

contribution of the deceased to the petitioner who is the wife

of the deceased. The learned Tribunal also granted an

amount of Rs.25,000/- towards consortium, Rs.25,000/-

towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses

and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation. The learned Tribunal

rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled an

amount of Rs.4.41,000/- towards total compensation.

Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

13. As per the evidence of RW2, Senior Assistant of RTO

Office, the seating capacity of the tractor is one i.e., driver 6 VGKR, J MACMA No.1503 of 2015

only and no seating capacity for trailer and that no person is

authorized to travel in the trailer including coolies also. As

per the admissions of own witness of petitioner i.e., PW3, at

the time of accident there were six passengers in the trailer.

Therefore, it is clear that there is a violation of terms and

conditions of policy insured with 2nd respondent. In cross

examination, RW2 admitted that at the time of accident, the

policy is on force. Here the crime vehicle is a Tractor. As per

the evidence of RW2, the driver of crime vehicle is having

driving licence non-transport Light Motor Vehicle and the

driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence at

the time of accident.

14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance

Company that the deceased was travelling in the offending

vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. As per the material

available on record, the crime vehicle/Tractor was insured

with Insurance Company under Ex.B1 copy of policy and the

driver of the tractor and trailer also possessed valid driving

licence to drive the tractor as the tractor and trailer will come 7 VGKR, J MACMA No.1503 of 2015

under the definition of light motor vehicle. Therefore, since

the driver of tractor is having valid and effective driving

licence by the date of accident and the crime vehicle is

insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the

policy is also on force and in view of the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India (three Judge Bench) of Singh ram

Vs., Nirmala and others1, the Insurance Company shall pay

the claim at first instance and later recover the same from

the owner of the crime vehicle.

15. In the judgment of Manuara Khatun and others Vs.

Rajesh Kumar Singh and others2 it was held that the

direction to United India Insurance Company Limited being

the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved

in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to

be issued directing them (United India Insurance Company

Limited/ respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to

the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid

2018 Law Suit (SC) 191,

(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 8 VGKR, J MACMA No.1503 of 2015

awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle without

filing any independent suit by filing an Execution Petition

against the owner of the crime vehicle.

16. As per the material available on record, it shows that

50% of the claim amount, with interest and costs, was

deposited before the Tribunal, therefore the 2nd respondent/

Insurance company is directed to pay the remaining claim

amount with interest of 9% p.a. with proportionate costs to

the petitioner at first instance, later recover the total

compensation amount 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.

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

the order dated 11.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.210 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

VII Additional District Judge, Ongole. The 2nd respondent/

Insurance Company is directed to pay the remaining balance 9 VGKR, J MACMA No.1503 of 2015

of compensation with interest of 9% p.a. with proportionate

costs within one month from the date of this judgment, to the

claimant at first instance and later recover the total

compensation amount from respondent No.1 by filing 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.

                       _______________________________
                       JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date : 17.04.2023
SJ
                       10                            VGKR, J
                                        MACMA No.1503 of 2015

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1503 of 2015

Date :17.04.2023

sj