United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Mohd. Siddique Siddik 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4656 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3716 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved against the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District

Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam, in

M.V.O.P.No.540 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim

petition as prayed for, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company

preferred the instant 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 petition.

3. The claim petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 163-

A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule

455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying

the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 13.07.2008.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 13.07.2008 the petitioner boarded an auto bearing

registration No.AP 16Y 4656 at Koneru centre to go to Pinaguduru

Lanka and when the auto reached Parnasala village, Guduru

Mandal, on National High Way main road, the driver of the auto

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit a Maruthi

car bearing registration No.AP 31R 8558, as a result, the petitioner

fell down from the auto on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

The S.H.O., Guduru P.S. registered a case in crime No.66 of 2008

for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. The

1st respondent is driver-cum-owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer

of the auto, the 3rd respondent is driver and the 4th respondent is

owner of the Maruthi car, hence, all the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

5. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed counters separately by denying

the averments made in the claim petition.

i) It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the accident

occurred due to negligence of the driver of the Maruthi car, the 1 st

respondent did not possess valid driving licence at the time of

accident, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

ii) It is contended by the 3rd respondent that the 1st respondent

was rash and negligent in driving the auto and he lost control over

the auto and dashed the Maruthi car and the claim of the petitioner

is excessive and the interest claimed is also exorbitant.

iii) It is contended by the 4th respondent that he is not the owner

of the Maruthi car and he sold the said car to one Srungavarapu Sai

Leela on 22.09.2007, therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay

any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues for trial:

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

1. Whether the petitioner suffered any injury or disability in the motor accident that took place on 13.07.2008 when hit by vehicle viz. Auto No.AP 16Y 4656?

2. Whether the petitioner suffered any disability?

3. Whether there was insurance coverage to the crime vehicle?

4. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle was holding valid driving licence by the date of accident?

5. Whethere was breach of policy conditions?

6. What is the rate of interest that can be awarded?

7. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom?

8. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 and

Exs.X.1 to X.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral

evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was marked with consent.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the

vehicles involved in the accident, and accordingly, allowed the

petition and granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation

to the claim petitioner with proportionate costs and interest at 6%

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against all the

respondents and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the

compensation amount. Being aggrieved thereby, the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company preferred the present appeal

questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

9. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused

the record.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

11. POINT: The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of

the Act whereunder the petitioner need not prove the rash and

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

negligent driving of the drivers of the offending vehicles. It is

sufficient to prove that the vehicles were involved in the accident.

12. In order to prove the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner

relied on his self testimony as P.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.1,

the driver of the auto as well as the driver of the Maruthi car were

responsible for the cause of the accident. The respondents did not

adduce any evidence to show that either the 1 st respondent alone or

the 3rd respondent alone was responsible for the cause of the

accident. Therefore, it can be said that the accident in question

arose out of use of both the auto and the Maruthi car and due to

composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles.

On appreciation of the entire material on record, the Tribunal also

came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. P.W.1 is the injured/petitioner. P.W.2 is a Civil Assistant

Surgeon in the Government Hospital. P.W.3 is also a Government

Doctor. P.W.4 is a Civil Assistant Surgeon. P.W.4 is also a Doctor

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

working as Nephrologist in Life Hospital, Guntur. Ex.P.2 would

certificate goes to show that the petitioner sustained fractures of

both bones of right leg and swelling on the left knee joint and the

evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 5 supported the same. On considering the

evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 and Ex.P.2-wound certificate and Ex.P.5-

medical bills and the period of treatment taken by the petitioner in

the hospitals, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.21,164/-

towards medical expenses, Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings,

Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.1,000/- towards damage

to clothes, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.30,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.40,000/- for two grievous injuries @

Rs.20,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- for one simple

injury.

14. Coming to the disability, the petitioner sustained 40% disability

as per the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.4-disability certificate of the

petitioner. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that there is no permanent total disablement and there is

only permanent partial disablement to the extent of 40% and

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- under the said

head.

15. In total, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.5,35,164/-. As the petitioner claimed only Rs.3,00,000/- in the

claim petition, the Tribunal restricted the claim of the petitioner to

Rs.3,00,000/-. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding

given by the Tribunal.

16. Since it is proved that the accident occurred by reason of

composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles

involved in the accident, on considering the overall circumstances of

the case, 50% contributory negligence is fixed on the driver of the

auto of the 1st respondent and 50% contributory negligence is fixed

on the driver of the Maruthi car of the 4th respondent.

17. As per Ex.B.1-copy of policy, the auto of the 1st respondent

was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the

policy was also in existence at the time of accident. As per the

evidence on record, there are no violations of the terms and

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

conditions of Ex.B.1 policy. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/Insurance

company is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent respondent/owner

of the auto with regard to 50% of compensation amount.

18. Though it is contended by the 4th respondent that he sold the

Maruthi car to one Srungavarapu Sai Leela, and by the date of

accident, he is not the owner of the Maruthi car, no oral or

documentary evidence was let in to establish his contention. The 3 rd

respondent is driver and agent of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the

4th respondent being owner of the offending Maruthi car is liable to

pay the balance 50% of the compensation amount.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The 2nd

respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit 50% of the

compensation i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate costs and

interest and the 4th respondent is directed to deposit the balance

50% of the compensation i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate costs

and interest as ordered by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within

two months from the date of this judgment. The order of the Tribunal

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

is modified to the extent indicated above and it stands undisturbed

in all other respects. No order as to costs in the appeal.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J th 4 October, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.3716 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 3716 of 2012

4th October, 2023 cbs