Claimstribunal-Cum-District ... vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3223 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A.No.2311 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the award passed in

M.V.O.P.No.371 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents

ClaimsTribunal-cum-District Court, Visakhapatnam,

whereby the claim of the claimant was dismissed by the

tribunal.

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

they are arrayed in the claim application

3. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly as follows:-

On 09.07.2002, the petitioner was returning on his

Spark moped bearing Registration No.AP-27-2905 from

Pernamitta to his residence and he reached District Police

Office at 8.30PManAmbassador Car bearing Registration

No.ABX-2144 (hereinafter be referred as „offending vehicle‟)

driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent

manner, and knocked the motor cycle and that the

claimant sustained fracture injury and also sustained

MACMA.No.2311 of 2012 VGKR,J

other simple injuries and later shifted to Vijaya Hospital,

Ongole for treatment and where he was treated for some

time and later he was admitted as an inpatient for a period

of 15 days in another private hospital and operation was

also conducted to him.

4. The 1st respondent is the owner as well as driver of

the offending car and the 2nd respondent is its insurer and

the claim against the 1strespondent was dismissed for non-

prosecution. The 2ndrespondent/insurance company

denied the manner of the accident and the insurance

company pleaded that the claimant is not entitled any

compensation from the 2nd respondent.

5. Based on the above pleadings the following issues are

settled for trial;

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.ABX 2144 by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondent ?

3. To what relief ?

MACMA.No.2311 of 2012 VGKR,J

6. During the enquiry on behalf of the claimant P.W.1 is

examined and marked Ex.A-1 to A-10 on behalf of the

insurance company/second respondent Ex.B.1 is marked.

7. Upon considering the entire evidence on record the

Tribunal came to conclusion that since the claim against

the first respondent was dismissed for non-prosecution

and therefore the liability of the second respondent/insurer

has no liability to pay the claim amount and dismissed the

claim application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved there by

the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant

in M.V.O.P.No.371 of 2005.

8. Heard the both learned counsel.

9. The pleadings of the appellant goes to show that on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle only the accident is occurred. In support

of the contention of the appellant/claimant, the claimant is

examined as PW.1. He stated in his evidence that he

received fractures due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle. As seen from the material on

MACMA.No.2311 of 2012 VGKR,J

record, the claim against first respondent/owner-cum-

driver of the offending vehicle is dismissed by the Tribunal

for non-persecution. The Tribunal relied on a decision

reported in Vaddi Raghava and another Nekkella Surya

Raoand others1, came to conclusion that since the claim

against first respondent who is the owner as well as driver

of the offending vehicle was dismissed for non-prosecution

and the liability of the second respondent/insurer being

only to indemnify the owner and with an observation the

claim of the claimant is dismissed by the tribunal.

10. The material on record clearly goes to show that the

claim against the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the

offending vehicle was dismissed for non-prosecution. The

claimant has not taken any steps in that regard before the

tribunal. It was held in the above decision (supra1) that

"the liability of the insurer in all motor accident claims is only to indemnify the owner who is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of his driver. When there is no liability against the owner, equally there is no liability against the insurer and there is nothing for the insurer to indemnify".

2007 (1) ALD 396

MACMA.No.2311 of 2012 VGKR,J

11. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in

the said finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the

impugned award is perfectly sustainable under law and it

warrants no interference. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed.

12. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 26.06.2023 CVD