Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Tholla Lakshminarayanamma 4 Others on 27 August, 2024
APHC010055762016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO: 867/2016
Between:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ...APPELLANT
AND
Tholla Lakshminarayanamma 4 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
NAGUMANTRI NAGESWARA RAO
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the
Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III
Additional District Judge at Anantapur (hereinafter called as
'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2009 dated 11.11.2011.
2. The appellant is the insurer of the tractor-cum-trailer
bearing No.AP 02 M 2721 and 2722 (hereinafter referred to as
"crime vehicle"). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the
wife, son, and parents of one T.Narayana Swamy (hereinafter
referred to as "deceased") respectively. The respondent No.5 is
the owner of the said crime vehicle.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter
referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.
4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the
Tribunal is that:
i). On 30.08.2006, on the instructions of owner of
the crime vehicle, deceased went on crime vehicle
and after loading the mud into the vehicle, the driver
of the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and ran over a
boulder, resulted, the trailer fell on the deceased,
who was standing by the side of the road and
sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing
treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on
the same day.
ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the
crime vehicle.
5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement
denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the
accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the crime vehicle; that the petition is bad for
non-joinder of driver of the crime vehicle as party to the
proceedings and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry
basing on the material:
"1.Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the
deceased T.Narayana Swamy?
2.Whether there is rash and negligence in driving the
crime vehicle by its driver at the time of the
accident?
3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what quantum and from
which respondent? and
5.To what relief?"
7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and
2 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf
of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and
Exs.B.1 to B.4 were exhibited.
8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that
the claimants are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.3,40,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the
accident.
9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was
preferred by the appellant/insurer.
10. Heard Sri M.Srinubabu, learned counsel representing
Sri N.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer.
11. Sri M.Srinubabu, learned counsel representing Sri
N.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer
submits that the claimants failed to prove that deceased was
working as coolie in the crime vehicle as well not paid any
premium to cover the risk of coolies; that the tribunal should
be restricted the liability to the Workmen Compensation Act
and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.
12. Now, the only point that arises for determination is
"whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue
No.3 is sustained in the eye of law?"
13. POINT:
It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in
the accident, involvement of crime vehicle in the incident as
well deceased working as coolie in the crime vehicle by the
time of incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the
claimants did not prefer any appeal against the award passed
by the Tribunal.
14. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the
insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to
the claimants since no premium was paid to cover the risk of
coolies and the liability is only under Workmen
Compensation Act.
15. To fortify the same, the insurer relied upon the
testimony of R.Ws.1 and 2. Albeit, R.W.2 categorically
testified during cross examination that in Ex.B.4 R.C. extract
of trailer nothing was mentioned regarding hamalies that they
can travel in the trailer for loading and unloading the
material. Even on perusal of Ex.B.1 photostat copy of policy
exhibited by the insurer through R.W.1, who is its official,
premium was paid to the tractor as well trailer to cover the
risk of owner cum driver and worker or employee and a
premium of Rs.728/- paid for loading on T.P. Thereby, it is
clear in vivid terms that the premium was paid to cover the
risk of one employee in the vehicle, which is not denied by the
insurer before the Tribunal. As stated supra, it is an
undisputed fact, even as per the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2,
the deceased was attending as a loading and unloading coolie
in the crime vehicle by the time of incident. It is also not in
dispute that that the Ex.B.1 policy is in force by the time of
incident and it is a comprehensive policy. Thereby, the
insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to
pay compensation to the claimants.
16. The Tribunal after elaborately discussing came to a
right conclusion that premium paid to the employee for
loading and unloading, it can be taken as workmen or
employee or hamali. Hence, the respondent No.2 company
simply by saying that there is no proof of deceased present in
the tractor at the time of accident as hamali is trying to avoid
compensation.
17. Now, it is needless to say that the appellant/insurer did
not urge any grounds regarding the calculations made by the
Tribunal as well quantum of compensation awarded, thereby,
this Court need not interfere with the said conclusions
arrived by the Tribunal.
18. Thereby, viewing of any angle, this Court does not find
any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. As
such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award
passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this
point is answered accordingly.
19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 27.08.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
DATE: 27.08.2024
Krs
