Unknown vs Aggrieved By The Impugned Order ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3527 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.436 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.10.2011 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional District Judge,

Guntur, passed in M.V.O.P.No.532 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal

has partly allowed the claim against the second respondent, the

instant appeal is preferred by the appellant.

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

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 163-A of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 and 476 of A.P. Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal

to award an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident

occurred on 26.01.2010.

                                  2                              VGKRJ
                                                     MACMA 436 of 2012

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 26.01.2010, the petitioner along with other coolies went to

coolie work for loading and unloading gravel and they boarded a

Tipper bearing No.AHH 3735 and proceeding to Velchuru village for

loading stone chips. At about 11.00 p.m. when they reached near

Kamepalli, the driver of the Tipper drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and hit to a tree, resulting which the petitioner and

another received injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of

Rs.1,70,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first and second respondents remained exparte. The third

respondent filed counter denying the claim of claimant and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

petitioner.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper bearing 3 VGKRJ MACMA 436 of 2012

No.AHH 3735 and that resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4

were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW1 and RW2 were

examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, 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.56,000/- to the claimant towards

compensation from the respondent No.2 and claim against other

respondents is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned award,

the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance

of compensation amount.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

                                  4                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 436 of 2012




10.   Now, the point for consideration is:

      Whether     the   Order        of   Tribunal   needs    any
      interference? If so, to what extent?


11.   POINT :-

On appreciation of the entire material on record, the Tribunal

came to conclusion that the petitioner travelled in the tipper as a

passenger and no premium was paid for loading and unloading

coolies and that the second respondent has violated the terms and

conditions of policy and the third respondent is not liable to

indemnify the liability of the second respondent and dismissed the

claim against the Insurance Company/ third respondent. On

appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to

conclusion that the claimant is entitled compensation of Rs.56,000/-

from the second respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle and the

petition against the first and third respondents was dismissed.

Quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal against the

second respondent is not at all disputed by the second respondent

and no appeal is filed by the second respondent against the finding

of quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. Though 5 VGKRJ MACMA 436 of 2012

several grounds are pleaded in the grounds of appeal, the appellant

has confined his argument only to the liability dismissed against the

third respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, the only legal

ground which requires to be considered in this appeal is whether the

dismissal of claim application against the third respondent is legally

sustainable or not?

12. The own pleadings of the petitioner itself shows that the

petitioner and other coolies went to the coolie work and boarded the

tipper for loading and unloading the gravel, at about 11.00 p.m.

when they reached near Kamepalli, the driver of the tipper drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner and hit to a tree, resultantly

the petitioner and another sustained injuries. The contention of the

third respondent is that Ex.B1 policy does not cover the risk of the

loading and unloading coolies and the policy obtained by the owner

is standard commercial vehicle liability. As seen from Ex.B1 policy,

absolutely no premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle for

loading and unloading coolies, therefore, the policy does not cover

the risk of the alleged loading and unloading coolies. The contention

of the petitioner is that he is travelling in the offending vehicle as 6 VGKRJ MACMA 436 of 2012

loading and unloading coolie and he is not a passenger travelling in

the offending vehicle.

13. The contention of the third respondent Insurance Company is

that the tipper is hydraulic tipper and it needs only loading workers

but not unloading workers and therefore, the claimant is only a

passenger and the respondents 1 and 2 have not paid any premium

covering the risk of loading and unloading coolies and that the

petitioner being passenger, the third respondent is not liable to pay

any compensation to the petitioner. As stated supra, Ex.B1 policy

itself shows that no premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle

for loading and unloading coolies. The own pleadings of the

petitioner are that they are travelling in the offending vehicle as

coolies for loading and unloading the gravel. As no premium was

paid by the owner of the offending vehicle for loading and unloading

coolies, there is no coverage of policy and the third respondent

Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the

owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal on appreciation of the

entire evidence on record rightly held that the petitioner is only a

passenger travelled in the tipper and respondents 1 and 2 violated 7 VGKRJ MACMA 436 of 2012

the terms and conditions of the policy and thus the third respondent

is not liable to indemnify their liability. More over, no evidence is

adduced by the petitioner to show that he travelled in the offending

vehicle as a coolie for loading and unloading the gravel. As noticed

supra, Ex.B1 policy does not cover the risk of coolies of loading and

unloading, because no premium is paid by the owner of vehicle for

loading and unloading coolies.

14. On appreciation of entire material on record, the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.56,000/- against the second

respondent and directed the second respondent to deposit the said

amount into the Tribunal. As noticed supra, no appeal is filed by the

second respondent against the said finding. There is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal in awarding

compensation to the petitioner from the second respondent. From

the foregoing discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is

perfectly sustainable under law and there are no merits in the

appeal filed by the claimant and it warrants no interference.

Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

                                 8                              VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 436 of 2012

15. In the result, this 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: 18.07.2023.

sj
                        9                            VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 436 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.436 of 2012

18.07.2023

sj