United India Insurance Company ... vs Manda Subbaiah Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1665 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1290 of 2012


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent/ Insurance Company

in M.V.O.P.No.356 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore and

the respondents are the petitioner and the 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 section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents by praying the Tribunal

to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

08.01.2002.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 08.01.2002 at about 13.00

hours, while the petitioner was unloading the marbles from the lorry

bearing No.AP 16 X 833 and loading the same into the tractor VGKRJ MACMA 1290 of 2012 Page 2 of 10 Dt:24.03.2023

bearing No.AP 26 U 5500 and trailer bearing No.AP 26 U 5501 and

at that time the driver of tractor kept his tractor very close to the lorry

and when the work was on process, the driver of the tractor without

taking any precautionary measures, drove the tractor in a rash and

negligent manner without giving signals, resulting which the marbles

fell on the leg of the petitioner and due to that he sustained injuries

and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards

compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte and the second

respondent filed counter 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 accident in question occurred if so was it due to the fault of the driver of Motor Tractor bearing registration No.AP 26 U 5500? And trailer bearing No.AP 26 U 5501?

 VGKRJ                                              MACMA 1290 of 2012
Page 3 of 10                                        Dt:24.03.2023




 ii.    Whether     the   petitioner   is   entitled   to   the

compensation claimed, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were marked. On behalf

of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were

marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.1,16,200/- to the claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the

present appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

 VGKRJ                                             MACMA 1290 of 2012
Page 4 of 10                                       Dt:24.03.2023




11.     POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that on 08.01.2002 at about 13.00

hours, while the petitioner was unloading the marbles from the lorry

bearing No.AP 16 X 833 and loading the same into the tractor

bearing No.AP 26 U 5500 and trailer bearing No.AP 26 U 5501 and

at that time the driver of tractor kept his tractor very close to the lorry

and when the work was on process, the driver of the tractor without

taking any precautionary measures, drove the tractor in a rash and

negligent manner without giving signals, resulting which the marbles

fell on the leg of the petitioner and due to that he sustained injuries.

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

himself examined as PW1. He categorically stated in his evidence

about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor.

Ex.A1 is the attested xerox copy of First Information Report, Ex.A2

is the attested xerox copy of the charge sheet. After completion of

investigation, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the

tractor alleging that the accident has been taken place due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The evidence

of PW1 is consistent and cogent with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The VGKRJ MACMA 1290 of 2012 Page 5 of 10 Dt:24.03.2023

evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 proves about the

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

negligence of the driver of the tractor only the accident took place.

13. The learned counsel for second respondent argued that the

tractor was insured with second respondent Insurance Company

under Ex.B1 policy and the trailer is not insured with the second

respondent / Insurance Company.

14. The learned Counsel for claimant relied on a decision of this

Court in between Gunti Devaiah Vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy1. In that

decision it was held :

The word 'vehicle' mentioned in section 147 is co-relatable to the words 'motor vehicle', which are stipulated in section 146. Therefore, the expression 'vehicle' wherever appearing in Chapter x has to be only read as motor vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortious liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle, namely, a tractor or a like self propelled vehicle. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover

2002 Law Suit (AP) 1437 VGKRJ MACMA 1290 of 2012 Page 6 of 10 Dt:24.03.2023

or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the trailer and in case of negligent driving of the tractor or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver.

That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk

Here in the present case as per the own admission of the

second respondent, the tractor is insured with the second

respondent / Insurance company and the policy is also on force

under Ex.B1 policy. It is not a dispute that the trailer is not having

any engine and without the tractor, the trailer cannot be moved. In

the above decision, this Court clearly held that the trailer by itself

cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor

vehicle namely a tractor or like self propelled vehicle and therefore,

the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner

would not arise, however on the ground that the trailer is not insured,

the Insurance Company cannot escape his liability.

 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 1290 of 2012
Page 7 of 10                                      Dt:24.03.2023

15. The evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show that the injuries

sustained by the claimant is grave in nature. Ex.A3 wound

certificate also supports the same. The learned Tribunal by giving

cogent reasons granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards grievous

injuries, an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and

Rs.61,200/- towards permanent disability and the learned Tribunal

also granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings and

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment of food.

In total, the learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons granted

compensation of Rs.1,16,200/- to the petitioner. The appellant/

Insurance Company is not disputed the quantum of compensation

awarded by the learned Tribunal in the appeal grounds itself. The

contention of the appellant is that Insurance Company has no

liability to pay the claim amount to the petitioner.

16. 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

(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 VGKRJ MACMA 1290 of 2012 Page 8 of 10 Dt:24.03.2023

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.

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

directed to pay the total claim of Rs.1,16,200/- 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 owner of the vehicle at the time of accident.

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

dated 26.10.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.356 of 2002 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Nellore. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.1,16,200/- 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 1290 of 2012 Page 9 of 10 Dt:24.03.2023

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: 24.03.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 1290 of 2012
Page 10 of 10                              Dt:24.03.2023









          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1290 of 2012



                          24.03.2023

sj