Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs S. Sankar 3 Others on 4 October, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.657 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.05.2012 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District Judge,
Tirupati, passed in M.V.O.P.No.519 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal
allowed the claim against the respondents 1 to 4, the instant appeal
is preferred by the appellant-Respondent No.2-Insurance Company,
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 claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 163-A of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the
Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle
Accident occurred on 11.10.2004.
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated
as follows:
The petitioner is a resident of Tirupati and cleaner to a jeep
bearing registration No.AP 03V4820. On 11.10.2004 at about 1.00
p.m. when the said jeep reached near Panapakam Ambedkar
Colony driven by its driver and the petitioner as a cleaner, first
respondent's lorry bearing registration No.AP 37T 6729, insured
with second respondent Insurance Company, driven by its driver,
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep,
resulting which the driver of the jeep died at the spot and the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
5. The first and third respondents remained exparte. The second
and forth respondents field counters separately denying the claim of
the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled any
compensation and the respondents 2 and 4 are not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
i. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the
motor vehicle accident that took place on
11.10.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. near Panapakam
Ambedkar colony on Tirupati-Chittoor main road
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry bearing registration No.AP37T 6729 belonging
to the 1st respondent, insured with 2nd respondent
dashed against the Mahindra Jeep bearing
No.AP03 V4820 belonging to the 3rd respondent
insured with 4th respondent?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3
and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 and RW2
were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 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
contributory negligence in between both the drivers of lorry and jeep
and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards total
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
compensation to the claimant against the respondents 1 to 4. Being
aggrieved by the impugned award, the second respondent
Insurance Company filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of
the order of the Tribunal.
9. Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and
Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the
record.
10. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference? If so, to what extent?
11. POINT :-
The Tribunal on considering the evidence of PW1 and also by
assailing reasons, came to conclusion that the accident in question
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both
lorry and jeep and the Tribunal by giving reasons held that there
was a contributory negligence in between both the driver of the lorry
and the driver of the jeep. It was further held by the Tribunal that
the legal representatives of the driver of jeep filed MVOP.386 of
2005 for the compensation, where the Court granted compensation
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
with a finding that there was a contributory negligence in between
both the drivers of the lorry and jeep. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of
decree and order passed in MVOP.No.386 of 2005. By giving
cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident in
question was occurred due to contributory negligence in between
both the drivers of lorry and jeep, in which the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the above
finding given by the Tribunal.
12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal granted an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant towards total compensation. In
order to prove the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the
petitioner relied on the evidence of doctors, who treated him, and
examined them as PW2 and PW3 and marked the medical bills as
Ex.A2 and also marked the case sheet as Ex.X1. PW3-Dr.S.Vidya
Sagar, deposed in his evidence that PW1 admitted in their hospital
on 11.10.2004 and he sustained two grievous injuries and two
simple injuries and injury Nos.3 and 4 are grievous in nature. PW3
further deposed that because of the grievous injuries, the petitioner
is suffering with disability of 16%. By taking monthly income of the
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
petitioner as Rs.3,000/- notionally, the Tribunal awarded an amount
of Rs.97,920/- towards the injuries suffered by the petitioner and
also disability suffering by the petitioner. In total, the Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner against the
respondents 1 to 4, towards compensation and directed the
respondents 2 and 4 to pay the same to the petitioner. Aggrieved
thereby, the second respondent-M/s.Oriental Insurance Company
Limited filed this appeal. The fourth respondent-M/s.New India
Assurance Company Limited did not prefer any appeal. It is not in
dispute that the first respondent's lorry was insured with second
respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force and there
are no violations in the policy. It is also not in dispute that the third
respondent's jeep was insured with fourth respondent Insurance
Company and the policy is in force and the driver of the jeep is
having valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident and
there are no violations in the policy. Therefore, the respondents 1
and 2 are liable to pay 50% of the compensation from out of
Rs.1,00,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal and the respondents 3 and
4 are liable to pay the remaining 50% compensation as ordered by
the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the award
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
passed by the Tribunal and the award passed by the Tribunal is
perfectly sustainable under law and there are no merits in the
appeal filed by the second respondent Insurance Company.
Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. 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: .10.2023.
sj
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 657 of 2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.657 of 2013
.10.2023
sj
