Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. The United India Insurance Co. ... vs Chakali Mahalakshmi 4 Others on 5 February, 2024
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
Page 1 of 15
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2580 & 2718 of 2012
M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 of 2012
Between:-
M/s. The United India Insurance
Company Limited, represented by its
Divisional Manager, Ananthapur.
...Appellant/Respondent No.2
And
Chakali Mahalakshmi and four (04)
others
...Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.2718 of 2012
Between:-
M/s. The United India Insurance
Company Limited, represented by its
Divisional Manager, Ananthapur.
...Appellant/Respondent No.2
And
Kuruva Susheelamma and four (04)
others
...Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Kotha Rama Mohan, learned counsel
representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty, learned
counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance
Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 of 2012. Also heard
Smt. D.Anusha, learned counsel representing Sri Chilukuri
Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
respondent No.2/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.
No.2718 of 2012 through virtual mode. None appeared for
the respondents.
2. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2580 and 2718 of 2012 are directed
by the Insurance Company, challenging the Order and
Decree dated 14.05.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83
of 2009, respectively, by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni
(hereinafter referred to „Tribunal‟).
3. Since the point involved and to be appreciated and
adjudicated in both appeals is one and the same, they are
disposed of by this Common Judgment.
4. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the
proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of
convenience.
5. Both claim petitions arose on account of a motor
vehicle accident occurred on 19.05.2008. The sum and
substance of claim petitions filed by the respective
claimants in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 is on
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
19.05.2008 one Kuruva Veeresh and Chakali Hanumanthu
(hereinafter referred to as „deceased persons‟) along with
some other people were going to attend the work at Stone
Crushing Unit belonged to one Balaram; around 1.30 PM
when they reached the stone crusher point situate at
Adoni-Yemmiganur road, a lorry bearing registration
No.AP16 U 9827 (hereinafter referred to as „offending
vehicle‟) driven by respondent No.1 in high speed from
Adoni towards Kurnool and could not control the vehicle
while turning and it turned turtle, consequently the
offending vehicle fell on the pedestrians; the deceased
persons who were among those pedestrians, succumbed to
injuries and the other pedestrians sustained injuries; the
deceased persons during their life time worked as Hamali
and earned not less than Rs.3,000/- per month.
6. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending
vehicle filed counter contending that the pedestrians
including the deceased persons all of a sudden made an
attempt to cross the road and as a result, the deceased
persons fell under the body of the offending vehicle; the
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased
persons but not due to the negligence of the respondent
No.1/driver of the offending vehicle.
7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter
contending that the offending vehicle violated the terms and
conditions of the policy; the offending vehicle involved in
the accident is only goods carrying vehicle, but the
deceased persons travelled as unauthorized passengers; the
offending vehicle was not having conveyance certificate and
permit at the time of accident.
8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions,
framed the following issues for trial in M.V.O.P.No.80 of
2009:
1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of
the deceased Chakali Hanumanthu had
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver employed by the respondent No.1
on his lorry bearing No.AP16U 9827?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, and if so, to what amount and
from which of the respondents?
3. To what the petitioners are entitled to?
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
In M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009, the following issues are
framed by the learned Tribunal:
1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of
the deceased Kuruva Veeresh had occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
employed by the respondent No.1 on his lorry
bearing No.AP16U 9827?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, and if so, to what amount and
from which of the respondents?
3. To what the petitioners are entitled to?
9. During enquiry, the respective wives of deceased
persons were examined as P.W.1 in both claim petitions
besides exhibiting five (05) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. In
respect of respondents, the Senior Assistant of the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company was examined as
R.W.1 in both claim petitions besides exhibiting five (05)
documents as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.
10. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the
evidence placed before it on issue Nos.1 and 2 in both the
claim petitions held that the deceased persons are not
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
gratuitous passengers and the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2009
Rs.3,82,500/- in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009 towards
compensation to the respective claimants with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum and directed the respondent
No.1/driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2/
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount
jointly and severally.
11. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the Insurer of
the offending vehicle i.e., 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company preferred the present appeals contending that
both deceased persons are unauthorized passengers,
travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident
and therefore, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
not liable to indemnify the insured i.e., respondent No.1.
12. Smt. D.Anusha, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009 i.e.,
M.A.C.M.A.No.2718 of 2012 would contend that the
Tribunal erroneously found that the deceased persons are
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
pedestrians and it is against the material placed before the
learned Tribunal.
13. Considering the above rival contentions, the points
that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as
under:
1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II
Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, in
M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 dated
14.05.2012 warrants interference of this Court?
2. To what relief?
POINT N O.1:
14. It is an admitted fact that both the appeals are
directed by the Insurance Company against the Order and
Decree in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009, dated
14.05.2012 and both the claim petitions arose on account
of a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.05.2008. It is
also an admitted fact that the deceased persons died in the
above impugned motor vehicle accident and the claimants
in both claim petitions are the dependants/legal
representatives of the respective deceased persons.
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
15. The case of the claimants in both the claim petitions
is that on 19.05.2008 the deceased persons were walking
by the side of road to reach their work place i.e., Stone
Crushing Unit belonged to one Balaram; at about 1.30 PM
when they reached the work place, the offending vehicle
coming from Adoni going towards Kurnool, came in a rash
and negligent manner; the driver of the lorry could not
control the offending vehicle as it was going at high speed;
as a result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and fell on
the pedestrians including the deceased persons; both the
deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and later,
succumbed to death on the same day; the other pedestrians
also sustained injuries.
16. The learned Tribunal considered Ex.A1 FIR as well as
Ex.A4 Final Report laid by the police after investigating the
case. The copy of Final Report placed on record would
corroborate the case of the claimants. It discloses that the
cleaner of the offending vehicle was also travelling in the
lorry at the time of accident, apart from three or four other
passengers, who are cited as witness in the final report.
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
17. It is an admitted fact that none of them were
summoned to the Court by the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. There is no material placed before the Court to
establish that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
challenged the Final Report before any other Forum. So, the
evidence placed before the learned Tribunal would probable
the plea of the claimants that both the deceased persons
were pedestrians at the time of accident, walking by the
side of the road to reach their work place and the offending
vehicle turned turtle and fell on them as the respondent
No.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, could not
control the vehicle as it was going in high speed at the time
of accident.
18. It is a settled proposition of law that in an application
filed under Section 166 of the Act, proof required to
establish the act of rash or negligence be tested on the
touchstone preponderance of probabilities only, but not on
the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required
in a criminal case. This view is fortified in the Judgments of
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in:
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
1. Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz and another1;
2. Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation2;
3. United India Insurance Company Limited vs.
Shila Datta3;
4. Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and
another4;
19. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the above referred
Judgments held that the Tribunal has to take a holistic
view of evidence and direct proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle need not be established by the claimants,
and the claimants have to establish their case on
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the
standard proof of beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in road traffic
accident.
1 2013 (10) SCC 946.
2 2009 (13) SCC 530.
3 2011 (10) SCC 509.
4 AIR 2023 (SC) 3349.
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
20. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further in N.K.V.Bros (P)
Limited vs. M.Karumai Ammal5 and Mangla Ram vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others6 and
also in the recent Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in Mathew Alexander case (supra) held as under:
"It is clear that the approach in examining the evidence in
as criminal case is not at all to find fault that the non-
examination of the eye witness in the case, but to analyse
the evidence already on record to ascertain that is sufficient
to answer the matter in issue and the touchstone of
preponderance of probability, and further, non-examination
of witness per se cannot be treated as fatal to the claim set
up before the Tribunal and in other words, the approach
should be holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and
evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of
probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in road traffic
accidents."
21. It is pertinent to note down that in N.K.V.Bros (P)
Limited case (supra), it was contended by the owner that
"criminal case in relating to the accident had ended in
acquittal, and for which reason the claim under Motor
5 1980 (3) SCC 457.
6 2018 (5) SCC 656.
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
Vehicles Act ought to be rejected‟. The Hon‟ble Apex Court
negatived the said argument by observing as under:
"The nature of proof required to establish culpable
rashness, punishable under the Indian Penal Code, is more
stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to
create liability."
22. The Hon‟ble Apex Court at para No.3 of the said
Judgment observed as under:
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country,
specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally.
This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as
has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an
initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special
care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers
and owners do not escape liability merely because of some
doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases,
culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where
it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to
niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are
emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by
transport operators getting away with it tanks to judicial
laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient
disciplinary control over the driver in the manner of careful
driving. The heavy economic impact culpable driving of
public transport must bring owner and driver to their
responsibility to their neighbour. Indeed, the State must
seriously consider no fault liability by legislation. A second
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the Tribunals.
We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs
and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential
foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of
citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in
enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in
compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several
years. The States must appoint sufficient number of
Tribunals and High Courts should insist upon quick
disposal so that the many States are unjustly indifferent in
this regard."
23. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in various Judgments, the Tribunals must take
care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers
and owners do not escape their liability merely because of
some doubt here or some obscurity there. The culpability
must be inferred from the circumstances where it is
reasonable and the Tribunal should not succumb to
niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes as laid down by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court. The Tribunal shall take a holistic
view of evidence placed before it. The Tribunal, while
appreciating the evidence shall not forget the rule that the
claimants to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities only. Standard of proof
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while
considering the petition seeking compensation on account
of death or injury in a road traffic accident.
24. In the appeals on hand, the evidence discussed above
would probable the plea of the claimants rather than
contentions of the respondent No.2/Insurance company.
There is no cogent evidence placed on record to disbelieve
the evidence lead by the claimants in both claim petitions.
In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere
with the finding of the learned Tribunal and the appeals
vide M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 and 2718 of 2012 filed by the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company are liable to be
'Dismissed'. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
POINT N O.2:
25. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeals in
M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 and 2718 of 2012 are liable to be
„Dismissed‟.
26. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2580
and 2718 of 2012 filed by the appellant/respondent
No.2/Insurance Company are 'Dismissed' by confirming
MACMA No.2580 & 2718 of 2012 BVLNC, J
(Common Judgment)
Date 05.02.2024
the Order and Decree dated 14.05.2012 passed in
M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District
Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
5th February 2024.
DNB
