National Insurance Company ... vs S.Doraswami Naidu And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 965 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1158 of 2012


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.514 of

1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal

(I Additional District Judge), Chittoor, and the respondents are the

petitioners and R1 in the said case.

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

arrayed in claim application.

3. The petitioners filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents, praying the Tribunal

to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation on

account of death of deceased S.Govindamma in a Motor Vehicle

Accident occurred on 01.07.1999 at 2.30 PM.

4. The case of the petitioners is that on 01.07.1999, the

deceased Govindamma and the 2ndpetitioner boarded the Tractor

and Trailer bearing Nos.ATK 8093 and ATK 8094 to go to their

village from NR Pet and when the tractor reached near culvert in

Cheelapalle, the left back tyre of the tractor got burst due to rash VGKRJ MACMA 1158 of 2012 Page 2 of 6 Dt:20.02.2023

and negligent driving of the driver of tractor, resulting which the

deceased died on the spot and the 2nd petitioner received

bleeding injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters denying the claim

application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any

compensation and they are not liable to pay any compensation to

the petitioners.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the petitioners are the only L.Rs. of the deceased Mrs.Govindamma?

ii. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tractor bearing No.ATK 8093 and Trailer bearing No.ATK 8094?

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation?

If so, to what amount and from whom?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, the 2ndpetitioner herself was

examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On behalf of

2nd respondent RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were

marked.

 VGKRJ                                             MACMA 1158 of 2012
Page 3 of 6                                        Dt:20.02.2023

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

a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of offending vehicle and in the said accident the

deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot and the

Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,76,000/- 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?

11. POINT:-

As seen from the order of the learned Tribunal, the learned

Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the petitioners are the

legal heirs of the deceased, who died in a road accident. The

Insurance Company also not disputed the said relationship. It

was held by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing

Nos.ATK 8093 and 8094. Basing on the material available on

record and basing on Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A6 Certified copy of VGKRJ MACMA 1158 of 2012 Page 4 of 6 Dt:20.02.2023

charge sheet filed by the police, the learned Tribunal rightly came

to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing

Nos.ATK 8093 and 8094. Hence there is no need to interfere

with the finding given by the Tribunal in its judgment.

12. The learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons in awarding

compensation of Rs.2,76,000/- to the petitioners and the Tribunal

rightly came to conclusion that the legal heirs of the deceased i.e.,

the claim petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.2,76,000/- by relying on a decision of Sarla Verma and

another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others1.

The Tribunal also rightly came to conclusion that the deceased

was an unauthorized passenger and travelling in the crime

vehicle at the time of accident and the learned Tribunal also

granted the said compensation and directed the Insurance

Company to pay the said claim to the petitioners at first instance

and later recover the same from first respondent by way of filing

Execution Petition. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India (three Judge Bench) of Singh ram Vs., Nirmala

and others2, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim at first

2009 ACJ 1298

2018 Law Suit (SC) 191,

VGKRJ MACMA 1158 of 2012 Page 5 of 6 Dt:20.02.2023

instance and later recover the same from the owner of the crime

vehicle, in case of unauthorized passengers travelling in the

crime vehicle. Therefore, in view of the latest decision of Hon'ble

Apex Court, there is no illegality in the order passed by the

learned Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the

claim amount to the claimants in first instance and later recover

the same from first respondent by filing an Execution Petition and

without filing any independent suit. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal

is devoid of merits.

13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 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: 20.02.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 1158 of 2012
Page 6 of 6                               Dt:20.02.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1158 of 2012

20.02.2023

sj