Shriram General Insurance Co.., ... vs Kamsala Murali Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1420 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3094 of 2014


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.569 of

2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur and the respondents are

the petitioner and first respondent in the said case.

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

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and

166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents by praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor

Vehicle Accident occurred on 18.06.2011.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00

a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in a Tractor and trailer

bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of tractor

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 2 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023

tractor turned turtle, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous

injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second 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 petitioner is an unauthorized passenger in the tractor and trailer?

ii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner causing accident?

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, from which respondent and to what extent?

iv.     To what relief?
 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 3094 of 2014
Page 3 of 9                                      Dt: 15.03.2023

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined

and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, 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.43,000/- to the claimant 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:-

The case of the petitioner is that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00

a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing

No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of the offending

vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 4 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023

of which, it was turned turtle, due to that the petitioner sustained

grievous injuries. Then immediately the petitioner was shifted to

Government General Hospital, Anantapur in an ambulance and the

petitioner was taken treatment as inpatient nearly 20 days and he

suffered severe and mental agony. First respondent was set

exparte. Second respondent filed counter by pleading that the

petitioner is unauthorized passenger in the tractor and that the

Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

12. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner

himself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First

Information Report, Ex.A3 certified copy of First Information Report

and Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet clearly goes to show that

due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer

only the accident was occurred and the claimant, who is travelling in

the said tractor, fell down and sustained severe injuries. Therefore,

in view of the above reasons, because of the rash and negligent

driving of first respondent driver only, the accident was occurred.

 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 3094 of 2014
Page 5 of 9                                      Dt: 15.03.2023

13. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, due to the

accident, he sustained grievous fracture injuries to his leg, for which

he took treatment at Government General Hospital, Anantapur for a

period of 20 days, he got exhibited Ex.A2 attested copy of wound

certificate, which reveals that rods are inserted to his left leg and the

petitioner permanently disabled and unable to do his coolie works,

for which the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.28,000/-

towards the said two fractures sustained by him. The learned

Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment for healing the

injuries. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding

given by the Tribunal. In total, the learned Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.43,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation.

There is no need to interfere with the said quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance

Company that the petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle

as an unauthorized passenger, no policy was issued to the trailer

and the second respondent/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 6 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023

the compensation. Here it is to be seen there is no separate engine

to the trailer, without the tractor, trailer cannot move. As per the

material available on record, the crime vehicle/Tractor was insured

with Insurance Company under Ex.B1 copy of policy and the driver

of the tractor and trailer also possessed valid driving licence to drive

the tractor. Therefore, since the driver of tractor is having valid and

effective driving licence by the date of accident and the crime

vehicle is insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the

policy is also on force and in view of the decision of Hon'ble

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

Nirmala and others1, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim at

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

vehicle.

15. In the judgment of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh

Kumar Singh and others2 it was held that the direction to United

India Insurance Company Limited being the insurer of the offending

vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to

2018 Law Suit (SC) 191,

(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 7 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023

negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United

India Insurance Company Limited/ respondent No.3) to first pay the

awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the

paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle without

filing any independent suit by filing an Execution Petition against the

owner of the crime vehicle.

16. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company is

directed to pay the total claim of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant at first

instance, later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing

Execution Petition without filing independent suit, since first

respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of

accident.

17. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, by modifying the order

dated 18.12.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.569 of 2011 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge

(FTC), Anantapur. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.43,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a., from the

date of petition, till the date of payment. The 2nd respondent/

Insurance Company is directed to pay the claim amount, within one VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 8 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023

month from the date of this judgment, to the claimant at first

instance and later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing

an Execution Petition and without filing any independent suit. On

such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along

with costs and accrued interest thereon. 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: 15.03.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 3094 of 2014
Page 9 of 9                              Dt: 15.03.2023








          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3094 of 2014



                          15.03.2023

sj