United India Insurance Co Ltd vs B Rami Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 5205 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 1485 of 2014

JUDGMENT:-

1)      Aggrieved by the impugned Award and Decree, dated

07.01.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2008 on the file

of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional

District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby, granting the

claim     of   Rs.4,00,000/-   to   the   Claimants   towards

compensation; this instant Appeal is preferred by the 2nd

Respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited,

questioning the legal validity of the Award 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 Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966, [the 'M.V. Act'] read

with A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 [the 'Rules'] against

the Respondents claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

on account of death of one Kalamgiri Pamuleti [the

'deceased'] that took place on 25.11.2006.
                               2



4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief as

follows:-

i. On 25.11.2006 at about 6.00 A.M., the deceased

along with his two brothers were proceeding in a auto

bearing registration No.AP04 V 4704 with their sheep

to go to Mydukur Town to sell the sheep and when

the auto reached near Bayanapalli Satram on NH.18

road, the driver of the 1st respondent lorry bearing

registration No. AAQ 1733 came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to that

the deceased received severe injuries and died at the

spot itself. The Police registered a case against the

driver of the 1st respondent vehicle lorry under the

relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

['I.P.C.']. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd

respondent is insurer of the lorry. Hence, both the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioner.

5) The 1st respondent filed counter denying the manner

of accident and pleaded that, since the insurance policy is

in force, the 1st respondent is not liable to pay the

compensation and prays to dismiss the claim against the

1st respondent.

6) The 2nd respondent filed written statement though

denying the material allegations made in the petition

pleaded that there is contributory negligence on the part of

the driver of the auto and, as such, no liability arises on

2nd respondent/insurance company.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the death of Kalamigir Pamuleti in a motor accident occurred on 25.11.2006 at 6.00 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AAQ- 1733 by its driver?

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

3) To what relief?

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

behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,

RW1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

9) 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.4,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at

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

deposit against both the respondents. Aggrieved against

the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred

the present Appeal.

10) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

11) Now, the point for determination is:

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

12) POINT: The case of the claimants is that, while the

deceased along with his two brothers were proceeding in a

auto bearing registration No.AP04 V 4704 with their sheep

to go to Mydukur Town to sell the sheep and when reached

near Bayanapalli Satram on NH18 road, the driver of the

1st respondent lorry bearing registration No.AAQ 1733

came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

auto, resulting the deceased sustained severe injuries and

died at the spot itself.

13) In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending accident vehicle, the petitioners

relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is none other

than the 1st petitioner/wife. She is not an eye witness to

the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident, who is

another brother of the deceased, who lodged a complaint

with the Police and who has travelled in the auto at the

time of accident. As per his evidence, the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle lorry. Ex.A1 - certified copy of F.I.R. and

Ex.A4 - certified copy of charge-sheet clearly goes to show

that the accident in question occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry belongs to 1 st

respondent. On appreciation of the entire evidence, 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 lorry.

14) The learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant

would submit that the seating capacity of the auto is 3+1,

but at the time of accident four persons were travelling

along with sheep, and, therefore, in view of violation of

terms of policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay

any compensation.

15) The material on record clearly goes to show that four

persons were travelling in the auto along with sheep.

Therefore, there is some negligence on the part of the

deceased, because he opted to travel in the overloaded

auto. Therefore, contributory negligence of the deceased

was arrived at '10%' because he opted to board into an

auto which was overloaded with four persons along with

sheep.

16) Coming to the compensation, though the contention

of the claimants is that the deceased used to earn

Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal by giving cogent

reasons arrived the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.3,000/- per month [Rs.100/- per day] and annual

income as Rs.36,000/- per annum [Rs.3,000/- x 12]. If

1/3rd is deducted from out of Rs.36,000/- towards

personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of

Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, an

amount of Rs.24,000/- is available to the dependent

[Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-]. The deceased was aged about

'38' years and the relevant multiplier applicable to the age

group of the deceased is "16". Therefore, Rs.3,84,000/-

[Rs.24,000/- x 16] is awarded towards 'loss of dependency'.

An amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of

consortium' to the 1st claimant; an amount of Rs.6,000/- is

awarded towards 'loss of estate' and an amount of

Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards 'funeral expenses'. In total,

a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded towards compensation

to the claimants.

17) It is not in dispute by both sides that, the offending

vehicle lorry is insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance

2009 (4) SCJ 91

company and Ex.B1- policy is in force and the driver of the

offending lorry is having valid driving license at the time of

accident.

18) As stated supra, there was a contributory negligence

of 10% on the part of the deceased because he was

travelling in the auto with overload i.e., with four persons

along with sheep. Therefore, as stated supra, there is a

contributory negligence of '10%' on the part of the

deceased. Therefore, an amount of Rs.40,000/- has to be

deducted from out of the total compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-.

19) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Consequently, the claim amount of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,60,000/-. Accordingly,

the appellant/United Insurance Company Limited is

directed to deposit the balance remaining compensation

amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of this

judgment. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects

shall remain intact. No order as to costs.

20) 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. 1485 of 2014

.10.2023

sm