Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Sudepalli Ediga Maddilety ... on 9 May, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1342 of 2014
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the
respondents are claim petitioner and 2nd respondent in
M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The
appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order
of the Tribunal.
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 claim petitioner filed the petition under Sections 140 and
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident
that took place on 15.12.2004.
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as
follows:
On 15.12.2004 the petitioner along with others was
proceeding on a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 21D 9804
and AP 21D 9805 to attend cooli work and as the driver of the
tractor-trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at
high speed, he could not control the vehicle and thereby, the tractor-
trailer turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained
injuries. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is
insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim
petitioner.
5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd
respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the
manner of accident. It is pleaded that the 1st respondent did not pay
any additional premium to cover the risk of coolies and therefore,
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the
following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP 21D
9804 & AP 21D 9805?
2) Whether the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions
of the Insurance policy?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation from
the respondents, and if so, to what extent?
4) To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of
the petitioner, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were
marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1
was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly,
granted an amount of Rs.37,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondents.
Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company
preferred the present appeal.
9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
10. The grounds urged by the appellant/Insurance company are
that the Tribunal failed to consider that as no additional premium
was paid for the coverage of coolies, the Insurance company is not
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, and the Tribunal erred
in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. which is exorbitant.
11. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference by
this Court?
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
12. POINT: The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1-certified
copy of first information report, Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet,
and Ex.A.6-certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.30 of 2005 clearly
proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal also gave the same
finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding
given by the Tribunal.
13. The claim petitioner is the injured in this case. In order to
prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1. It is
his evidence that due to the accident, he sustained a fracture to his
left lower arm, a fracture to his hip joint and multiple injuries all over
the body and on 04.01.2005 an operation was done to his left arm
and a steel nail was also implanted. But, the petitioner failed to
examine the doctor, who treated him in the hospital, to substantiate
his case. Though the petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- towards
attendant and medical expenses, he failed to file the relevant
prescriptions to the medical bills filed under Ex.A.-5-bunch of
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
medical bills. It is the contention of the petitioner that because of the
accident, he is unable to do any work, but no evidence was brought
on record in proof of the same. As per the case of the petitioner, he
used to earn Rs.60/- per day by doing cooli work and Rs.40/- per
day by selling milk. But, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence
to prove his earnings on milk business. By giving cogent reasons,
the learned Tribunal granted Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering
and two grievous injuries, Rs.3,000/- towards treatment, extra-
nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.4,500/- towards loss of
earnings. Thus, in total, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.37,500/- towards compensation to the claim petitioner. This
Court feels that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the
said finding given by the Tribunal.
14. A perusal of Ex.B.1-policy clearly shows that the offending
vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company by
the 1st respondent/owner and the policy was also in force as on the
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
date of the accident. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the
policy was not in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore,
the Tribunal rightly held that both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. This Court
feels that there is no illegality in the said finding recorded by the
learned Tribunal.
15. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. is concerned, this
Court finds merit in the submission of the learned standing counsel
for the appellant/Insurance company that the Tribunal awarded
exorbitant rate of interest and therefore, the same has to be reduced
from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the decree and
order dated 02.01.2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in
M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2006 is modified by reducing the rate of interest
from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. The order of the Tribunal in all other
respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs.
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
appeals shall stand closed.
_______________________________
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
th
9 May, 2023
cbs
VGKR,J
MACMA No.1342 of 2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1342 of 2014
9th May, 2023
cbs
