The New India Assurance Company ... vs Tanneru Veeramma And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4683 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.4243 OF 2012

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.1058 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation to the

petitioners, the 2ndrespondent/New India Assurance Company

Limited has 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 petitioners filed the petition against the respondents

praying the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the

death of Tanneru Babu, who is son of 1st petitioner and father of

petitioner Nos.2 to 4, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

30.08.2006.

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

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

as follows:

On 29.08.2006 the deceased 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

deceased and others sustained severe injuries and later, the

deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the

Government General Hospital, Guntur. 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 1st offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of 2nd offending vehicle,

hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners.

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

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

manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

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 petitioners 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.4243 of 2012

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 petitioners are 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.5

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.2,10,000/- towards compensation to

the petitioners 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 and 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

2ndrespondent/New India Assurance Company Limited preferred the

present appeal.

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 petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1-

first information report, Ex.A.2-inquest report, Ex.A.4-post mortem

report and Ex.A.5-charge sheet. P.W.1 is none other than the

mother of the deceased and she is not an eye witness to the

accident. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. 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.2 to discredit his

evidence in chief examination affidavit and P.W.2 also denied the

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

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

connection with the accident in question. Ex.A.2-inquest report and

Ex.A.4-post mortem report disclose that the death of the deceased

caused due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ex.A.5-

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.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with

Exs.A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 clearly 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, the Tribunal, by giving cogent

reasons, arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-

i.e., Rs.18,000/- per annum. As per Ex.A.2-inquest report and

Ex.A.4-post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

36years at the time of accident. After deducting 1/3rd from out of

annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by

applying the relevant multiplier „16‟ to the age group of the deceased,

the Tribunal rightly arrived the loss of dependency to the family

members of the deceased at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.12,000/-

(Rs.18,000/- - Rs.8,000/-) x multiplier "16"). In addition to that, the

Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the

deceased, Rs.6,000/- towards transportation and medical expenses,

and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. By giving cogent reasons,

the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled

to a total compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-. 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.

14. It is the contention of the appellant/Insurance company that

the deceased travelled in the 1stoffending vehicle as a fare paid

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

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.2, 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.2. 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,

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

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

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

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

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 deceased. On a careful scrutiny of the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 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

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

M.V.O.P.No.1058 of 2006. No order as to costs.

VGKR,J MACMA No.4243 of 2012

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.4243 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.4243 of 2012

5thOctober, 2023 cbs