The New India Assurance Company ... vs Mamidi Demullamma And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 882 AP

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

              M.A.C.M.A.NO.1482 OF 2012



JUDGMENT:

The appellant is 2nd respondent Insurance

Company and the respondents herein are the claim

petitioners and other respondents in M.V.O.P.No.233

of 2010, dated 26.08.2011 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional

District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at

Anakapalle.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as

they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Respondents

1 & 2 for seeking compensation an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of Mamidi

Krishnam Raju in a Motor Vehicles Accident that

occurred on 02.04.2006. at 1:30 pm. MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

4. The claimant's case is that the petitioners are

residents of Pedapudi Village, Butchayyapeta Mandal

and are dependents on the deceased Mamidi Krishnam

Raju, they further pleaded that on 02.04.2006

deceased along with other labour went to attend coolie

work in a lorry of the 1st respondent at Pangidi Village

to load logs of casuarina from the fields of

Seethayyapeta Village. While so, on the way the driver

of the offending vehicle bearing No. AB V 2952 driven

the same in a rash and negligent manner and when

the lorry reached near Nookambika Temple, Pedapudi

Village, Butchayyapeta Mandal 1:30 pm., the driver of

the lorry not able to control the speed of the lorry and

dashed against a tree by the side of the road, due to

which the deceased and other labourer in the lorry

sustained severe injuries in the said accident.

5. The 1st respondent is the owner of lorry and the

2nd respondent is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, The

1st and 2nd respondents filed a counter, the 1st MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

respondent denied all the allegations as averred in the

petition and he admitted that he is the owner of the

offending vehicle but he is not aware of the accident

and the driver of the offending vehicle is working under

him since a long time and the offending vehicle insured

with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the

policy is also on force and his driver having valid and

effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle.

6. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed a

counter denying the claim of claimants and the

Insurance Company pleaded that the claimants are not

entitled any compensation from 2nd respondent

Insurance Company.

7 Based on the above pleadings the, Tribunal

framed following issues:

           1) Whether    the   deceased          Mamidi
           Krishnam     Raju   died    in    a    motor

accident occurred on 02.04.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

bearing No. AB V 2952 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioners?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation, if so, what amount, from which the respondents?

3) To what relief?

On behalf of the Petitioners, P.Ws.1 & 2 are

examined, Ex.A.1 to A.5. are marked. On the other

hand, on behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 are

examined. Exs. B.1 to B.3. are marked and Exs.X.1 to

X.3.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any

interference and the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and necessary.

9. The Tribunal gave a finding in its order that due

to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent

driver of the lorry only the accident is occurred and the MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

deceased died in the said accident, rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the lorry is not at all disputed

by the Insurance Company initially, the 2nd respondent

Insurance Company pleaded in the written statement,

that at the time of accident, the driver of the lorry

drove the lorry in a normal manner, but as seen from

the F.I.R. and charge sheet filed by the Police in a

criminal case, it is clear that the driver of the lorry

drove the lorry rash and negligent and unable to

control the steering of the lorry and dashed to the tree

and in that accident the deceased received severe

injuries and died.

10. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the

accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the lorry bearing No. ABV 2952.

Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said

finding given by the Tribunal.

MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

11. The Tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.3,75,000/- by giving cogent reasons in its order,

the Learned counsel for Insurance Company pleaded

that there is a permit violation on the date of accident,

R.W.2 Senior Assistant in RTO Office, Anakapalli,

admitted in his evidence in his chief examination itself

Ex.X2 is the Copy of permit along with 'B' register of

the Vehicle bearing No. ABV 2952, and as per the

Ex.X2 the vehicle is goods vehicle. In cross-

examination. when elicited he admitted as per Ex.X2

permit the registration was valid by 02.04.2006,

12. I have perused as per Ex.X2 the permit is valid

from 07.04.2005 to 06.04.2010 herein in the present

case date of accident is on 02.04.2006. Therefore, this

Court is unable to accept contention raised by the

learned counsel for appellant that by the date of

accident the crime vehicle is not having any permit, MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

Another plea taken by the learned counsel for

appellant is that the deceased was a gratuitous

passenger and there are the policy violations and that

Insurance Company is not personally liable to pay the

compensation. As seen from the Charge sheet, the

deceased and others are proceeding in a lorry for

loading and unloading purpose.

13. The Assistant Manager of Insurance Company is

examined as R.W.1. R.W.1, the Assistant Manager of

Insurance Company pleaded ignorance in cross-

examination that at the time of accident the deceased

was travelling on a lorry as a labour and that he was

not a gratuitous passenger, he further admits the

crime vehicle lorry is insured with 2nd respondent

Insurance Company and the policy is on force by the

date of accident. In the Charge sheet it was clearly

stated by the Investigating Officer on the date of

accident the deceased and others are proceeding in an

offending vehicle for loading the Mango logs and they MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

are proceeding in a lorry for loading purpose. The

Investigator of Insurance Company is examined as R.W.

4, he pleaded ignorance that Whether the policy can be

extended for labours. As per the documentary

available on record the deceased and others are

travelling in a lorry for a loading purpose.

14. The Insurance Company clearly admits that by

the date of accident the offending vehicle is insured

with Insurance Company and the policy is also on

force. The Tribunal gave cogent reasons in arriving the

Quantum of Compensation, the same is not disputed

by the Insurance Company but their plea is that the

deceased was a gratuitous passenger, this Court has

clearly explained the reasons above that the deceased

was travelling in a lorry for the loading purpose only

therefore, the objection taken by the Insurance

company is not at tenable therefore there are no

grounds to interfere with the finding given by the

Tribunal in its order dated 26.08.2011, in MACMA NO.1482 of 2012

M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2010 on the file Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without

costs.

16. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Dated:15.02.2023.

KNN