Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs Guddevandla Ramanaiah, on 24 April, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3518 of 2014
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.343 of
2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family
Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa 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 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents by praying the Tribunal
to award an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident
occurred on 07.02.2012.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 07.02.2012 at noon time the petitioner and other coolies
boarded the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and
6415 at Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village, after
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 2 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
crossing Jyothi village, at about 3.30 p.m., the driver of the said
tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed and lost control over the vehicle at the turning and applied
sudden brakes, resulting which, the tractor and trailer fell into the
stream on the right side and the coolies, who were sitting in the
trailer sustained bleeding injuries. The claimant, who was travelling
in the said tractor sustained crush injury over left foot and laceration
on left zygomatic region and the petitioner claimed an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by
him.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters by denying the claim
application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any
compensation and the respondents are not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor
vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing
No.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 on 07.02.2012?
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 3 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation, if so what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined
and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1
was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 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.2,51,600/- 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?
11. POINT:-
The case of the petitioner is that on 07.02.2012 at noon time
the petitioner and other coolies boarded the tractor and trailer
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 4 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 at Jyothi village to attend
coolie work at Gollapalli village, after crossing Jyothi village, at
about 3.30 p.m., the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the
vehicle at the turning and applied sudden brakes, resulting which,
the tractor and trailer fell into the stream on the right side and the
coolies, who were sitting in the trailer sustained bleeding injuries,
the claimant, who was travelling in the said tractor sustained crush
injury over left foot and laceration on left zygomatic region.
12. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner
himself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.
The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First
Information Report, Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet clearly
goes to show that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the
tractor and trailer only the accident was occurred and the claimant,
who was travelling in the said tractor, fell down and sustained
severe injuries. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, because of
the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor only, the accident
was occurred. The Tribunal also came to the same conclusion.
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 5 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
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 disability sustained by the claimant (left leg of the petitioner was
amputated below the knee). In order to prove the claim, the
petitioner also relied on Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate,
Ex.A4 disability certificate and Ex.A5 prescriptions and reports
issued by Tulasamma hospital, Kadapa. As per Ex.A2 wound
certificate, the claimant sustained a crush injury over left foot,
laceration over left zygomatic region and fracture of left femur and
disarticulation of left knee was done. Ex.A4 disability certificate
reveals that the petitioner suffered with disability of 40%, for which
the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,01,600/- towards
permanent disability. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount
of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and
Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The learned Tribunal by
giving cogent reasons, in total, awarded an amount of Rs.2,51,600/-
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 6 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
to the petitioner towards compensation. There is no need to
interfere with the said quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance
Company that the petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle
as an unauthorized passenger and the second respondent/
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In the
pleadings of the petition itself the petitioner and other coolies
boarded the Tractor and Trailer at Jyothi village to attend coolie
work at Gollapalli village and six persons were travelling in the trailer.
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. 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.,
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 7 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
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 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. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company is
directed to pay the total claim of Rs.2,51,600/- to the claimant at first
instance, later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing
Execution Petition without filing independent suit, since first
2018 Law Suit (SC) 191,
(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 8 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
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 15.04.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2012 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI
Additional District Judge, Kadapa. It is held that the claimant is
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,51,600/- 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 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: 24.04.2023.
Sj
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 9 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3518 of 2014
24.04.2023
sj
