Tribunal - Cum - Ii Additional ... vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3495 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A.No.467 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 22.03.2012

passed in M.V.O.P.No.184 of 2010 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Madanpalle,

whereby the claim of Rs.44,400/- was awarded from the 1st

respondent, towards compensation to the claimants, this

instant appeal is preferred by the claimant.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the

present appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before

the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed the claim application under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor

Vehicle Accident.

4. The brief averments in the claim application are as

follows:-

On 26.05.2010, after completion of his work at

Chinathaparthi, when he reached near Anathapuram

Temple on his motorcycle, the driver of milk van bearing

No.AP-03-X-4030 (hereinafter be referred as 'offending

vehicle') which was coming in opposite direction and drove

it in a rash negligent manner and caused injuries, that on

the advice of Dr.Sanjeevarayudu, has taken to Saint John

Hospital, Bangalore, that he has spent more than

Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses with the driver of

the offending vehicle caused such accident while

discharging his duty under the 1st respondent and milk

van is insured with the 2nd respondent by the 1st

respondent and that the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

5. On the other hand, the 1st respondent pleaded that

accident occurred only due to cross negligence of the

petitioner who was driving the said two-wheeler.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Tribunal framed following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of milk van bearing registration No.AP-03-X-4030 involved resulting in the injuries to the petitioner by name C.Raghava Reddy?

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

      3.   To what relief?

7. During the course of the enquiry, on behalf of the

petitioner P.Ws1 and 2 are examined and marked Exs.A-1

to A-5 and Exs.X1 to X4 are marked for petitioner. On

behalf of the Insurance Company R.W.1 is examined and

Exs.B1 and B2 are marked for the 2nd respondent.

7. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the

Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimant is entitled to

compensation of Rs.44,400/- and fixed the liability on the

1st respondent and claim against the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company is dismissed. Aggrieved

against the said award the claimant filed the instant

appeal.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

POINT:

9. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle, the claim petitioner

examined himself as a P.W.1. The evidence of P.W-1

coupled with Ex.A-1 certified copy of charge sheet clearly

goes to show that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The

Tribunal also came to conclusion that the accident in

question is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the offending vehicle.

10. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.44,400/- to the claimant towards

compensation. The material on record reveals that the

petitioner sustained one grievous injury, one simple injury

and also suffering from disability of 5%. In order to prove

the injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW.2,

an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards one

grievous injury and an amount of Rs.3,000/- was awarded

towards one simple injury. On considering the Ex.A-5

medical bills an amount of Rs.42,432/- was awarded

towards medical expenses by this Court. Coming to the

head of disability the Tribunal arrived that the petitioner is

suffering from disability of 5% and the annual income of

the injured was taken Rs.36,000/- per month. By

considering the age of the petitioner, the correct multiplier

applied to the petitioner is '16' therefore, an amount of

Rs.28,800/- is awarded towards disability of 5% sustained

by the petitioner (Rs.36,000/- x 5/100 x 16), an amount of

Rs.1,000/- was awarded towards transportation charges,

an amount of Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards extra

nourishment of food and attendant charges. In total, the

claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.93,932/-. The

Tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs.6,000/- only

towards one grievous and one simple injury as state supra,

this Court awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- for one

grievous injury, Rs.3,000/- for one simple injury and this

Court on considering the material on record awarded an

amount of Rs.93,932/- towards total compensation to the

claimant.

11. The material on record reveals that the offending

vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company and the policy is also in force. The material on

record reveals that R.W-3/ 1st respondent himself admitted

that he was not having valid and effective driving license to

drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. As

stated supra, the offending vehicle is insured with the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company and the policy is also in

force. The principle laid down in Swarna Singh case is

that even in the case of absence, fake or invalid driving

license or disqualification of the driver for driving, the

Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award in favour

of the 3rd party at the first instance and later recover the

award the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle,

even then the company could establish breach of terms of

policy on the part of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore,

the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay

the compensation of Rs.93,232/- awarded by this Court to

the claimant at first and later recover the same from the 1st

respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle by filing an

execution petition and without filing any independent suit.

12. For the fore going reasons, the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

total compensation of Rs.93,232/- with interest of 6% per

annum within two (02) months from the date of this

judgment before the Tribunal and later recover the same

from the 1st respondent/owner of offending vehicle by filing

an execution petition, without filing any independent suit.

On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the

same along with interest and costs.

13. With these above observations, this Appeal is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 17.07.2023 CVD