New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Ganganapalle Obulamma 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2521 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.837 of 2015


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.190

of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the

petitioners 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 claimants 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.5,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of deceased Ganganapalli Ananda

Rao 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 deceased Ananda Rao 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, when the vehicle reached Chakralavanka 2 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015

turning near Jyothi village, the driver of the said tractor drove the

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

which, the tractor and trailer turned turtle, as a result of which, the

deceased, who was sitting in the trailer received fatal injuries and

died on the spot and the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the

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

compensation for the death of deceased in a Motor Vehicles

Accident.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and

contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation

and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation

to the petitioners.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the deceased Ganganapalli Ananda Rao died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.02.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. at Chakralavanka near Jyothi village of Sidhout Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 3 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015

of the 1st respondent being insured with 2nd respondent?

ii. Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation?

iii. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?

iv. To what relief?

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

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of 2nd respondent

RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was 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.5,00,000/- to the claimants 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?

                                 4                                  VGKRJ
                                                        MACMA 837 of 2015




11.   POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that on 07.02.2012 at noon

time the deceased Ananda Rao 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, when the vehicle

reached Chakralavanka turning near Jyothi village, the driver of

the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner

with high speed, resulting which, the tractor and trailer turned

turtle, as a result of which, the deceased, who was sitting in the

trailer received fatal injuries and died on the spot.

12. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first

petitioner herself got examined as PW1. PW1 is not an eye-

witness. The claim petitioners got examined the eye-witness as

PW2. The evidence of PW2 clearly shows that because of the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle only, the

accident was occurred and the petitioners also relied on Ex.A1

certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 certified copy

of charge sheet. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 and

Ex.A4 clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of

driver of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415

and due to his rashness and negligence only, the accident was 5 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015

occurred and the deceased, who was travelling in the tractor and

trailer, sustained severe injuries, later succumbed to 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 gave the same finding. Therefore,

there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the

learned Tribunal.

13. The petitioners in this case are claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of deceased G.Ananda Rao in a road

accident. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased

was a coolie and milk vendor and earning an amount of

Rs.9,000/- per month by the date of his death. The learned

Tribunal by giving cogent reasons fixed an amount of Rs.5,000/-

per month towards the monthly income of deceased and it comes

to Rs.60,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/4th of

the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased.

Here the dependents are three in number. So the learned

Tribunal has to deduct 1/3rd of the said amount. After deducting

1/3rd amount, it comes to Rs.40,000/- per annum and the

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '14' and

it comes to Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 14 = Rs.5,60,000/-).

                                     6                                 VGKRJ
                                                           MACMA 837 of 2015




Accordingly,    the     claimants       are   entitled    an   amount     of

Rs.5,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal

also granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral expenses,

Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards love and

affection and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first

petitioner. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled an amount of

Rs.6,40,000/- towards total compensation.

14. On considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal

came to conclusion that the claimants are entitled an amount of

Rs.7,10,000/-, but the claim is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-, since

the claimants claimed Rs.5,00,000/- only. No appeal is filed by

the claimants against the said finding. Therefore, the claimants

are entitled an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only.

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

Company that the deceased 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

deceased and other coolies boarded the Tractor and Trailer at

Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village and six 7 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015

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.,

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.

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

2018 Law Suit (SC) 191,

(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 8 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015

(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.5,00,000/- to the claimants 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.

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

order dated 12.03.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2012 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional

District Judge, Kadapa. It is held that the claimants are entitled to

a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @6% 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

claimants 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 claimants entitled to 9 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015

withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon.

The award of Tribunal in all other respects regarding

apportionment of amount shall stands confirmed. 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: 27.04.2023.

Sj
                        10                           VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 837 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.837 of 2015

27.04.2023

sj