Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs A. Prakashamma 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4770 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned award and order passed in

M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Vehicles

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,

Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount

of Rs.2,00,000/- towards total compensation to 1st claimant

against both the respondents, this instant appeal is preferred

by 2nd respondent/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited questioning the legal validity of the award passed by

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 aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2010 was filed by the

claimants, under Section 166(C) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of

A.Sekhar in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.01.2010.

1st claimant is the wife and 2nd to 4th claimants are the children

of the deceased.

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

On 28.01.2010, the deceased A.Sekhar and other

coolies were engaged by 1st respondent for loading and

unloading of sand on the tractor and trailor bearing

No.AP 04C 8005 and AP 04C 8006 and after loading of the

sand at Pulimaddi Village, the deceased and other coolies

came along with the tractor and trailor to unload the sand at

Nandyal town and when the said tractor and trailor reached

near Darga on SRBC Road, at about 5 p.m., the driver of the

tractor drove the tactor and trailor in a rash and negligent

manner due to which he lost control over the vehicle and the

tractor and trailor fell into a ditch, as a result the deceased fell

down from the trailor and sustained multiple injuries and

immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital,

Nandyal at where he succumbed with injuries. A case in Crime

No.22 of 2010 was registered against the driver of the tractor

and trailor at Nandyal Taluk Police Station. 1st respondent is

the owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending

vehicle tractor and trailor.

5. 1st respondent remained ex parte.

6. 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter by

denying the claim of the claimants.

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

Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased A.Sekhar died in a road

accident which took place on 28.01.2010 at about

5.00 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the

tractor and trailor bearing No.AP 04C 8005 and 8006 by its

driver?

2. Whether the driver of the tractor and trailor

bearing No.AP 04C 8005 and 8006 is having valid and

effective driving license to drive the said tractor and trailor

at the time of accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation, if so to what amount and against whom?

4. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim

petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B1

to B5 and Exs.X1 and X2.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the

entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to 1st

claimant towards total compensation against both the

respondents. Aggrieved thereby, 2nd respondent/Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Company Limited questioning the legal

validity of the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. Heard Sri P.B.Narsimha Murthy, learned counsel for the

appellant/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.

None appeared for the respondents.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs

any interference? To what extent?

POINT:

12. The contention of the claimants is that because of the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

tractor and trailor, the accident in question occurred in which

the deceased sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Nandyal at where he succumbed with

injuries. The Tribunal by assailing cogent and convincing

reasons came to conclusion that the deceased was travelling

in the tractor and trailor as a coolie by sitting in the trailor for

unloading of the sand and by applying the decision reported in

2010(2) ALD 281, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the

accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the offending vehicle tractor and trailor bearing

No.AP 04C 8005 and 8006. By giving cogent reasons, the

Tribunal gave the said finding. I do not find any legal flaw or

infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore,

there is no need to interfere with the above finding given by the

Tribunal.

13. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal arrived the

age of the deceased was 58 years and the relevant multiplier

applicable to the age group of the deceased is '9'. The

accident in question occurred in the year 2010. The monthly

income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.3,000/- per month

by the Tribunal. The same is reduced to Rs.2,400/- and the

dependents on the deceased are three in number and by

deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses, net

income available to the dependants on the deceased is

Rs.1600/- per month. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,72,800/-

(Rs.1600/- x 12 x 9) was awarded towards loss of dependency.

In addition to that, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards

funeral expenses and an amount is Rs.5,000/- is awarded

towards loss of consortium to 1st petitioner. In total, an amount

of Rs.1,82,800/- is awarded towards total compensation.

14. It is not in dispute by both sides that the offending

vehicle tractor and trailor is insured with 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company and the policy is in force and

the said policy is a comprehensive policy.

15. The material on record reveals that the deceased

travelled in the offending vehicle tractor cum trailor as a

loading and unloading coolie, the same is arrived by the

Tribunal itself and the risk of the deceased is covered in the

policy. As per the evidence of R.W.1-Official of Insurance

Company, the deceased was travelling in the tractor and trailor

for the purpose of unloading. Even though the Insurance

Company examined in R.T.O Office, Nandyal as R.W.2,

nothing was elicited from R.W.2 in cross examination that the

driver of the offending vehicle tractor and trailor is not having

any kind of driving license by the date of accident. Therefore,

the oral contention of the appellant/Insurance Company before

this Court that the driver of the offending vehicle tractor and

trailor did not having any driving license has no force. The

Tribunal also came to the same conclusion that the driver of

the offending vehicle is having valid driving license.

16. The insurance policy also shows that there was a

coverage for owner and driver and also a premium of Rs.550/-

was paid to the attached trailor and the policy is a

comprehensive policy and an amount of Rs.25/- is paid to the

L.L to person for operation/maintenance for one person.

Therefore, the policy covers the risk of the deceased.

17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the claim

amount granted by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.2,00,000/-

to Rs.1,82,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Both the respondents are directed to deposit the remaining

balance amount of compensation with interest at the rate of

6% per annum within two months from the date of this

Judgment. On such deposit, 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw

the same with interest thereon. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Dt.07.10.2023 ANI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2012

Dt.07.10.2023

ANI