The New India Assurance Com. Ltd., ... vs Atchi Pothuraju, Prakasam Dist., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4682 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.930 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the

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

Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.1057 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation to the

petitioner as against his claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, the 2nd respondent

has preferred the instant appealquestioning the legal validity of the

order passed by the Tribunals.

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 petition against the respondents

praying the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place

on 30.08.2006.

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated

as follows:

On 29.08.2006 the petitioner and some others boarded a lorry

bearing registration No.AP 16TW 2873 (hereinafter called as '1st

offending vehicle') at Nakarikallu cross road to go to Hyderabad for

the purpose of loading and unloading and at about 2.30 a.m. on

30.08.2006 when the lorry reached near Ramapuram cross road,

the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner without

taking proper care and caution and dashed against a lorry bearing

registration No.AP 16TU 3993 (hereinafter called as '2nd offending

vehicle') which was parked on the road margin, as a result, the

petitioner and others sustained grievous injuries. The S.H.O.,

Dachepalli P.S. registered a case in crime No.86 of 2006 against the

driver of 1st offending vehicle for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. The 1st respondent is driver

and the 2nd respondent is insurer of 1stoffending vehicle and the 3rd

respondent is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of 2nd

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

offending vehicle, hence, all the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set ex parte. Respondent

Nos.2 and 4 filed written statements separately by denying the

material averments made in the claim petition.

i) It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the driver of 1st

offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the

heavy vehicle and the claim of the petitioner is usurious and

excessive.

ii) It is contended by the 4th respondent that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of 2nd offending vehicle and the

driver of 1st offending vehicle drove the said vehicle with high speed

in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the stationed lorry

on the right side margin.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

1) Whether the accident took place due to negligent act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16TW 2873 and lorry bearing No.AP 16TU 3993?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

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

the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8

were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4, R.W.1 was

examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material

available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

1st offending vehicle, and accordingly, allowed the petition in part

and granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation to

the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of deposit againstrespondent Nos.1

and 2 and dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos.3

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

and 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred the

present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

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

record.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court, if so, to what extent?

11. POINT: In order to establish the occurrence of the accident,

the petitioner relied on his self-testimony as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1-first

information report and Ex.A.4-charge sheet. According to P.W.2,

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of 1st offending vehicle

the accident occurred. Nothing was elicited by the respondents

from the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit his evidence in

chief examination affidavit and P.W.1 also denied the contra

suggestions put to him. Ex.A.1-first information report shows that

based on a report given by one Kota Kalinga Reddy, the police

registered a case against the driver of 1st offending vehicle in

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

connection with the accident in question. Ex.A.4-charge sheet goes

to show that aftercompletion of investigation into the accident, a

charge sheet has been laid on the driver of 1st offending vehicle.

The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.4clearly reveals

that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of 1st offending vehicle. On appreciation of the 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.

12. Coming to the compensation, in order to prove the injuries and

the disability sustained by him due to the accident, the petitioner

relied on the evidence of P.W.2-doctor and Ex.A.2-wound certificate

and Ex.A.5-medical certificate issued by P.H.C. Medical Board,

Government General Hospital, Guntur. As per Ex.A.5, amputation

was done to the left leg above the knee of the petitioner and the

percentage of the disability of the petitioner is 60% and the

petitioner is aged 55 years. Since the petitioner failed to produce

any material to establish his income at the time of accident, by

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the

petitioner as Rs.1,500/- i.e., Rs.18,000/- per annum. On considering

Ex.A.5 that the petitioner sustained 60% disability and by applying

the multiplier '11' to the age group of the petitioner by following II

Schedule to the M.V. Act, the Tribunal granted an amount of

Rs.1,18,800/- (Rs.18,000/- x 60% disability x multiplier '11'). On

considering that the petitioner suffered because of amputation to his

left leg above the knee as well as the amount incurred for his

treatment under Ex.A.8-medical bills, the Tribunal also granted an

amount of Rs.16,200/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/-

towards medical expenses. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal

came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent is owner and the

2nd respondent is insurer of the 1stoffending vehicle under Ex.B.1

policy and the policy was also in existence at the time of accident.

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

14. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company

that the petitioner travelled in the 1stoffending vehicle as a fare paid

passenger and his risk was not covered under Ex.B.1 policy,

therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any

compensation.

15. According to the evidence of P.W.1, he and others boarded

the offending lorry for loading and unloading purpose and he denied

the suggestion put to him that on the date of accident, he was

proceeding to Hyderabad from Nakarikal Adda Road by paying fare

to the lorry driver. In Ex.A.1-first information report, it is specifically

mentioned that the complainant and others boarded the offending

lorry for the purpose of loading and unloading, which is corroborated

by the evidence of P.W.1. To establish their case, the respondents

failed to examine the driver of the 1stoffending vehicleas he is the

competent person to speak about the engagement of the deceased

in the lorry for the purpose of loading and unloading. Ex.B.1

categorically reveals that the 2nd respondent/Insurance company

collected a sum of Rs.100/- to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver,

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

Rs.50/- to cover the risk of two employees under the Workmen

Compensation Act and Rs.75/- to cover the risk of another

employee. From the above reasons, it is apparent that the petitioner

and others travelled in the offending lorry as employees at the time

of accident for the purpose of loading and unloading and Ex.B.1

policy covers the risk of the petitioner. On a careful scrutiny of the

evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and B.1, and by giving valid reasons,

the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by

the Tribunal.

16. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that there is

no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal and it is

perfectly sustainable under law and the appeal is devoid of merits,

therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed,while confirming the

decree and order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, in

M.V.O.P.No.1057 of 2006. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J th 5 October, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.930 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.930 of 2014

5thOctober, 2023 cbs