Unknown vs Aggrieved By The Impugned Order ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3528 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.169 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.344 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal

has partly allowed the claim against the second respondent, the

instant appeal is preferred by the appellants.

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 claimants 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.4,00,000/- towards compensation on

account of death of Pindi Chinna Narasimha Rao @ Narasimha Rao

@ Narasaiah in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 26.01.2010.

                                  2                              VGKRJ
                                                     MACMA 169 of 2012

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

On 26.01.2010, the deceased Narasimha Rao 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 deceased Narasimha Rao and another received grievous

injuries and died on the spot and the petitioners claimed an amount

of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation.

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

respondent filed counter denying the claim of claimants and

contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and

the third 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 died of accident of Tipper bearing No.AHH 3735?

                                  3                             VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 169 of 2012

ii. Whether the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by carrying passengers in a goods carriage by violating the permit conditions?

iii. Whether the driver of the Tipper was holding effective valid driving licence as on the date of accident?

iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for?

v. To what relief?

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

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

Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW1 and RW2

were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 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.3,94,000/- to the claimants towards

compensation from the respondent No.2 and claim against other 4 VGKRJ MACMA 169 of 2012

respondents is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned award,

the claimants filed the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

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 deceased Narasimharao 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 claimants are entitled compensation of

Rs.3,94,000/- from the second respondent/ owner of the offending

vehicle and the petition against the first and third respondents was 5 VGKRJ MACMA 169 of 2012

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 several grounds are pleaded in the grounds of appeal, the

counsel for appellants 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 PW1 itself shows that the deceased

Narasimha Rao 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 deceased Narasimha Rao and another

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 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 6 VGKRJ MACMA 169 of 2012

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 petitioners is that the deceased Narasimha Rao

was travelling in the offending vehicle as 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 deceased Narasimha

Rao 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 deceased being passenger, the third respondent is not

liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 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

PW1 are that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as

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

paid by the owner of the offending vehicle for loading and unloading 7 VGKRJ MACMA 169 of 2012

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 deceased Narasimha

Rao is only a passenger travelled in the tipper and respondents 1

and 2 violated 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 petitioners to show that the

deceased Narasimha Rao 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.3,94,000/- 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 8 VGKRJ MACMA 169 of 2012

compensation to the petitioners 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 claimants and it warrants no interference.

Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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 169 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.169 of 2012

18.07.2023

sj