The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Nettam Venkata Ramanujamma 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4971 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 4080 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Order, dated 09.04.2014,

passed in M.V.O.P. No. 432 of 2013 on the file of the

Chairman,      Motor      Accidents    Claims      Tribunal-cum-XVI

Additional     District    and   Sessions     Judge,     Nandigama,

whereby, the claim of Rs.3,24,000/- was awarded towards

total compensation to the claimants; this instant Appeal is

preferred by the 3rd Respondent/the Oriental Insurance

Company Limited, 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Sections

163(A) and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the 'M.V.

Act'], and Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules [the 'Rules']

against   the     Respondents         claiming     compensation    of

Rs.3,50,000/-      on     account     of   death    of   one   Nettam
                                     2


Venkateswara Rao [the 'deceased'] in the motor accident

that took place in the early hours on 16.09.2006.


4)     Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 15.09.2006, the deceased was on duty as a

cleaner on lorry bearing registration No. AP16 TU

1262 and when the lorry reached Electrical Sub-

Station, Chillakallu, at 3.00 A.M. on 16.09.2006, the

1st respondent/driver drove the lory in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed

against the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration

No.AP10 Z 8895, which was coming in opposite

direction, resulting grievous injuries to the 1st

respondent and also to the deceased, who died in the

hospital while undergoing treatment.

ii. Initially, the Police, Chillakallu Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No. 145 of 2006 for the

offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.'] and on receipt of

death intimation of the deceased, Section 304(A) of

I.P.C. was added. The 1st respondent is the driver, the

2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is

insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, all the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners.

5) The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The

3rd respondent filed written statement while denying the

claim of the Claimants pleaded that the 1st respondent

driver was not having a valid driving license and that the

offending vehicle is not insured with the 3rd respondent. It

was further pleaded that, the petitioners have filed a case

before the Assistant Commissioner Labour claiming

compensation, in which the 3rd respondent filed counter;

thereafter, on submission of memo by the petitioners, the

said case was dismissed as 'not pressed and, among other

grounds urged, pleaded that the 3rd respondent/insurance

company is not liable to pay any compensation much less

the compensation claimed by the Claimants and prays to

dismiss the petition.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the deceased Nettam Venkateswara Rao died in a motor vehicles accident occurred on 16.09.2006 at 3.00 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent/driver of lorry AP 16TU 1262 belonging to the second respondent?

2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

7) During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on

behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd

respondent, RW1 was 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 came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle lorry and accordingly, allowed the

petition by granting compensation to an amount of

Rs.3,24,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization against the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved against

the said order, the appellant/Insurance company 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: The case of the Claimants is that, the

petitioners are none other than the parents of the deceased

[Nettam Venkateswara Rao], who was the cleaner of the

lorry bearing registration No. AP16 TU 1262. On

15.09.2006, the deceased was on duty as cleaner,

proceeding in a lorry towards Vijayawada and when the

lorry reached Electrical Sub-Station, Chillakalu, at about

3.00 A.M. on 16.09.2006, the driver of the said lorry drove

the offending vehicle lorry in a rash and negligent manner

with high speed, dashed the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing

registration No. AP10 Z 8895, which was coming in an

opposite direction, resulting which the driver of the lorry so

also the deceased received grievous injuries and the

deceased died in the hospital while undergoing treatment.

12) In order to prove the rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the offending vehicle, the Claimants have

relied on Ex.A1 - attested copy of the F.I.R., Ex.A2 -

attested copy of the altered F.I.R. and Ex.A6 - attested

copy of the charge-sheet. On considering the evidence

available on record, the Tribunal rightly came to a

conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to

rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending

vehicle - the 1st respondent herein. I do not find any legal

flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13) Coming to the compensation, as per the case of the

petitioners, the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/- per

month as salary, apart from batta of Rs.50/-. The Tribunal

by giving cogent reasons arrived at a monthly income of

deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., annual income as

Rs.36,000/- per annum. Since, the deceased was bachelor,

50% of the income was deducted towards his personal

expenses. If the 50% is deducted, an amount of

Rs.18,000/- is available to the dependents. Since the

deceased was aged about 20 years, as on the date of

accident, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group

of the deceased is "18" as per the judgment of Sarla

Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1. Accordingly,

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- [Rs.

18,000/- x 18] towards total compensation to the

petitioners.

14) The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant

would submit that, no doubt the offending vehicle lorry is

insured with the 3rd respondent/insurance company and

the policy is in force, but the deceased was gratuitous

passenger and the deceased was not covered under Ex.B1

- policy and, as such, the 3rd respondent/insurance

company is not liable to pay any compensation.

2009 (4) SCJ 91

15) The material on record reveals that the offending

vehicle is insured with the appellant/insurance company

and is a comprehensive policy. No doubt, Ex.B1 policy is a

comprehensive policy, but still an additional premium of

Rs.50/- was paid for employee; an another amount of

Rs.75/- was paid for employee including employees (owner

of the goods). The insurance policy is covered for driver,

cleaner and also for another person. The Tribunal by giving

cogent reasons held in its Order that, since in the accident

the driver is injured and the cleaner [deceased] is died, the

insurance company cannot escape from payment of

compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the

liability on both the insured and insurer and fastened the

liability on 2nd and 3rd respondents and directed the 3rd

respondent/insurance company to deposit the said

amount.

16) It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending

vehicle lorry is having valid driving license by the date of

accident. The learned counsel for both the sides would

submit that the claimants filed a case under Workmen's

Compensation Act that was withdrawn by the claimants by

'not pressing' the same. Ex.B4 also proves the same. For

the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the said

finding given by the Tribunal and the Award passed by the

Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires

no interference. The appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it

is liable to be dismissed.

17) Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, while

confirming the decree and order, dated 09.04.2014, passed

by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, in

M.V.O.P. No. 432 of 2013. No order as to costs.

18) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date: 13.10.2023 Sm..

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 4080 of 2014

.10.2023

sm