Pakanati Hanuman Reddy, Guntur ... vs K Sreenivasa Rao, Guntur Dist Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5201 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 3626 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree,

dated, 31.01.2012, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1279 of 2012 on

the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge [F.T.C.], Guntur,

whereby, a claim of Rs.1,86,935/- was awarded towards

compensation to the claimant by the Tribunal, this instant

appeal is preferred by the claimant for exoneration of

Insurance Company for payment of compensation and so

also enhancement of compensation.


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)   Sri.      Pakanati   Hanuman   Reddy     [the   'claim

petitioner'] filed the petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [the 'M.V. Act'] against the

respondents claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for

the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 03.08.2008 due to rash and negligent
                               2


driving of the driver of the 1st respondent auto bearing

No.AP27 W 2190.


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as

follows: -

i. On 03.08.2008 at about 8.30 P.M., while the

petitioner was proceeding with another on his two-

wheeler on the left side of the road margin, the driver

of the auto bearing registration No.AP27 W 2190

came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent

manner, and to extreme wrong side tried to overtake

the lorry, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner,

resultantly the petitioner sustained severe injuries

including fracture injuries. The Macherla Town Police

have registered a case in Crime No. 127 of 2008

against the driver of the offending vehicle auto for the

offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.']. The 1st respondent is the

owner of the offending vehicle auto and the 2nd

respondent is the insurance company and, hence,

both the respondents are jointly and severally liable

to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5) The 1st respondent/owner remained ex parte. The 2nd

respondent/insurance company filed written statement

denying the claim of the claimant. The respondent pleaded

that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation

since the entire negligence is on the part of the petitioner

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:

i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver auto No. AP27 W 2190?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and against whom?

iii) To what relief?

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

behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 were marked. On

behalf the respondent No.2, RW1 to RW3 were examined

and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 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 the offending auto and,

accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded

an amount of Rs.1,86,935/- with interest at 8% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization, while

exonerating the 2nd respondent/insurance company,

directed the 1st respondent to pay the compensation.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the

appellant/petitioner preferred the present appeal for

claiming remaining balance of compensation amount and

also exoneration of insurance company for payment of

compensation to the claimant.

9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

10) Now, the point for determination is:

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

ii) Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to remaining balance compensation amount, as prayed in the claim application?

11) POINT No. (i) and (ii): The claim application is filed

under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The petitioner is injured

in the claim application. The facts of the case are that, on

03.08.2008 at about 8.30 P.M., while the petitioner was

proceeding with another on his two-wheeler on the left side

of the road margin, at that time, the driver of the auto

bearing registration No.AP27 W 2190 came in opposite

direction and to extreme wrong side tried to overtake the

lorry, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, resultantly

the petitioner sustained severe injuries including fracture

injuries. On considering the entire material on record and

on considering the documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the accident in

question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle auto. I do not find any

illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

12) Coming to the compensation, as per Ex.A3 - certified

copy of the wound certificate, the petitioner sustained three

injuries and one simple injury and also another

comminuted fracture injury. The Tribunal on considering

the evidence of Doctor - Dr. B. Narendra Reddy [PW2] and

on considering the documentary evidence available on

record rightly awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards

fracture injuries [Rs. 10,000/- each] and also Rs.15,000/-

for one grievous injury [comminuted fracture] and also

awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards 'pain and

suffering' for simple injury. The Tribunal on considering

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 awarded an amount of Rs.18,775/-

towards medical expenses. On considering the entire

material available on record, the Tribunal arrived at a

conclusion that the petitioner sustained disability of 17%

because of the injuries sustained in a road accident. The

Tribunal arrived the notional income of the petitioner as

Rs.36,000/- per annum and by applying the relevant

multiplier, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.1,10,160/- towards 17% permanent disability sustained

by the petitioner. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of

Rs.8,000/- towards 'future medical expenses' and

Rs.2,000/- towards 'incidental expenses'. In total, the

Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,86,935/-

along with interest @ 8% per annum.

13) The material on record reveals that the offending

vehicle auto is insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance

company and the policy is in force. The learned Counsel for

the appellant would submit that the Tribunal exonerated

the insurance company for payment of compensation.

14) As seen from the material available on record, the

respondents relied on the evidence of RW3. As per the

evidence of RW3, who is an employee in Road Transport

Authority Office, the driver of the offending vehicle auto is

having driving license of LMV non-transport HTV transport

and LMV transport driving license and the said Srinivas

Rao [driver] is not having auto rickshaw non-transport or

transport driving license. RW3 further stated that, to drive

three-wheeler auto rickshaw the driver must possess auto

rickshaw driving license. The material on record clearly

reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle auto is not

having valid and effective driving license by the date of

accident.

15) The principle laid down in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others1 is that, even in case

of absence, fake or invalid license or disqualification of the

driver for driving, the Insurance company is liable to satisfy

the award in favour of 3rd party at the first instance and

2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36

later recover the award amount from the owner of offending

vehicle, even when the Insurance Company could able to

establish breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner

of the offending vehicle. Therefore, in view of the principle

laid down in Swaran Singh [1st cited supra], I am of the

considered view that the 2nd respondent/insurance

company is liable to pay the entire compensation along

with interest awarded by the Tribunal and later recover the

same from the owner of the offending vehicle auto by filing

an execution petition without filing an independent suit.

16) For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is disposed

of directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to

deposit the quantum of compensation amount of

Rs.1,86,935/- with interest @ 8% per annum, as ordered

by the Tribunal, within two months from the date of this

judgment and later recover the same from the 1st

respondent/owner of the offending auto by filing an

execution petition and without filing any independent suit.

On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the

same along with interest therein. No order as to costs.

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

in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 30.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No. 3626 of 2014

.10.2023

sm