K.Sandeep vs Bora Ananda Reddy Amp 5 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4443 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K.Sandeep vs Bora Ananda Reddy Amp 5 Ors on 18 June, 2024

APHC010825232017
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                AT AMARAVATI           [3364]



            TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
              TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU

   MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
                      2920/2017

Between:

   1. K.SANDEEP, S/O.K.S.A.NAIDU, OWNER OF HIRED RTC
      BUS BEARING NO.AP 35 U 8989 REP BY ITS GPA
      HOLDER KSN NAIDU, S/O.CHINA SATYAM AGED 58
      YEARS R/O.PLOT NO.724, K.A.P.LAYOUT, VUDA COLONY,
      CONTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM.

                                                 ...APPELLANT

                                AND

   1. BORA ANANDA REDDY, S/O. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 40
      YEARS, BEING MENTALLY UNSOUND REP. BY HIS WIFE
      BORA VARAHALAKSHMI ANANTHA LAKSHMI W/O. BORA
      ANANDA REDDY,AGED ABOUD 35 YEARS,R/O. KUMMARI
      VEEDI,ALIPURAM,VISAKHAPATNAM.

      AMENDED THE NAME OF WIFE/GUARDIAN OF THE
      RESPONDENT NO.1 AS BORA VARAHALAKSHMI IN THE
      PLACE OF BORA VARALAKSHMI AS PER COURT ORDER
      DATED 17.04.2023 IN IA.NO.1/2023.

   2. CHOKKAPU CHINNAM NAIDU, S/O.PENTAYYA DRIVER OF
      HIRED RTC BUS BEARAING NO.AP 35 U 8989
      R/O.BUDATHANAPALLI [V], GANTYADA [M], VIZIANGARAM
      DISTRICT.
                                     2




     3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS
        DIVISIONAL MANAGER O/O.VISAKHAPATNAM.

     4. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY
        ITS DEPOT MANGER O/O.VIZIANAGARAM

     5. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY
        ITS REGIONAL MANAGER O/O.VIZIANAGARAM.

     6. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY
        ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR O/O.HYDERABAD.

                                                 ...RESPONDENT(S):

The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:

-

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 29.10.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.‟s and S.T.‟s (P.o.A.) Act - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram („Tribunal‟ for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, with regard to the injuries received by the petitioner/claimant, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 09.07.2009 at 07.30 p.m., awarded a sum of Rs.12,23,830/- as compensation and directed the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- and that the remaining amount of Rs.4,73,830/- is to be deposited by the respondent No.2 who is the present appellant and who is no other than the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) On 09.07.2009, at 07.30 p.m., when the petitioner came from Vizianagaram towards Visakhapatnam on his motorcycle and when he reached near Modavalasa Road, one A.P.S.R.T.C. hired bus bearing No. AP 35 U 8989 („offending vehicle‟ for short), driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. Petitioner received severe injuries and fell unconscious. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. Later from there to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He received fractures of ribs and head injury. He underwent operations and spent an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-

towards operations charges. He also spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to amount paid by the Eco Railway. After discharge from Seven Hills Hospital, the petitioner/claimant was sent to Railway Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Two persons always attended the petitioner. The petitioner/claimant became permanently disabled and mentally unsound, due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Head, Legs and Ribs cannot be cured in near future. His entire life became marred and the petitioner is unable to move or walk or stand. He is still bed-ridden.

(ii) The petitioner/claimant is being represented by his wife, who is guardian and next friend, as he is unsound. Entire family members of the petitioner are dependent on the earnings of the petitioner only. They became destitute and suffered lot of financial problems and unable to meet the medical expenses even. Due to permanent disablement, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the services on medical grounds and the petitioner became senseless and living dead. The petitioner also lost his two eyes inthe accident. Hence, the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. (i) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.

(ii) Respondent No.3/Insurance Company and respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are A.P.S.R.T.C. officials contested the matter.

(iii) The contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company in brief is that the petitioner has to prove the manner of the accident and nature of the injuries and expenditure incurred. A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable to pay the compensation.

(iv) The contentions of the respondent No.3 further according to the additional counter is that the employer of the petitioner provided necessary food and the expenses regarding the treatment. The wife of the petitioner cannot represent the petitioner and that compensation claimed is excessive.

(v) Respondent Nos.4 to 6 got filed a counter denying the cause set out by the petitioner and contended in substance that the claimant has to prove the nature of the injuries and entitlement of compensation.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:

(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle motor hired A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 35 U 8989, by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

6. Further the Tribunal on the date of judgment settled the following additional issue for trial:

"Whether the petitioner being mentally unsound, can be represented by his wife and pursue the case without obtaining orders from the competent Court?"

7. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 6 were examined, Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.X1 to X15 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and Ex.B1 is marked by consent. Respondent Nos.4 to 6/ A.P.S.R.T.C. did not let in any evidence.

8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, gave a finding that the wife of the petitioner being the guardian can represent her husband, who was mentally unsound. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner proved the nature of the injuries received and it is 100% disability. With regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal made positive findings, but with a finding that there was contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the petitioner. The Tribunal further arrived at the compensation as Rs.17,00,460/-, by looking into Ex.X7-pay slip and deducted certain amounts received by the claimant towards compulsory retirement gratuity and towards service gratuity and arrived at compensation as Rs.15,29,787/- and considering the 20% of the contributory negligence, the Tribunal deducted Rs.3,05,957/- out of Rs.15,29,787/- and arrived at the net compensation payable as Rs.12,23,830/-. The Tribunal considered the fact that offending vehicle was covered with Ex.B1-policy of insurance and made a finding that according to Ex.B1, the liability of the Insurance Company is only to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/-, as such, directed the respondent No.3 to pay Rs.7,50,000/- and further the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., present appellant to pay rest of the amount.

9. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal that there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which caused the accident, there is no cross appeal. Further with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, there is no

cross appeal filed by the claimant. Even there is no cross appeal on the part of the insurance company so as to disown its responsibility. Hence, the simple question that falls for consideration is:

"Whether the award, dated 29.10.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2010, on the file of the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.‟s and S.T.‟s (P.o.A.) Act - cum

- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in fixing the responsibility to a tune of Rs.4,73,830/-, on the part of the appellant i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?"

10. Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal misinterpreted Ex.B1-insruance policy. He invited the attention of the Court that the limit of the compensation to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/- mentioned is only relating the third party property damage but it is not relating to injuries or death. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is also that he is not disputing the quantum of compensation and it is for the Court to decide with regard to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. On 10.05.2024, this Court sought for clarification regarding the provision of law mentioned in Ex.B1. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that the provision of law mentioned in Ex.B1 is not at all traceable and it must have been a mistake. However, today, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly submits that there is no dispute that the limit of Rs.7,50,000/- mentioned in the Ex.B1 is only relating to property damage of the third party and it is not relating to the compensation regarding injuries or death.

12. In the light of the above, this Court has further looked into Ex.B1. Ex.B1 is very clear that the limit of Rs.7,50,000/- mentioned is only relating third party property damage, but it is not relating to the compensation regarding injuries or death.

13. So, it is quite clear while interpreting the contents of Ex.B1, the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.7,50,000/- only and erroneously ordered to pay the rest of the compensation by the owner of the offending vehicle.

14. Having regard to the above and considering the scope of the appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal erred in fixing up the responsibility against the owner of the offending vehicle. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the entire responsibility of paying compensation is to be fixed against the Insurance Company only.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that had there been a direction in the award to the respondent No.3 to pay the entire compensation, it would have complied the order and this Court may consider not to grant any interest with regard to the rest of the amount payable by the respondent No.3.

16. It is fact that the with regard to the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal directed that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award. The Tribunal did not fix up the liability against the respondent No.3/Insurance Company with regard to the rest of the amount erroneously. For the fault of the Tribunal, now claimant cannot be deprived of the interest @ 7% per annum on the rest of the amount payable by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed, but under the circumstances without costs. The appellant/respondent No.2 in

M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.‟s and S.T.‟s (P.o.A.) Act - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is exonerated from complying the terms of the award, dated 29.10.2024. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the rest of the amount i.e., Rs.4,73,830/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. As the claimant has already withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-which was deposited by the appellant vide orders of this Court, dated 03.07.2015 in I.A.No.3 of 2015 (M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2731 of 2015), now, the claimant is entitled only Rs.2,33,830/- with accrued interest. Consequently, the appellant is permitted withdraw the amount deposited by him with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of his deposit to the credit of M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.‟s and S.T.‟s (P.o.A.) Act - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, on filing separate application before the Tribunal.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.18.06.2024.

Vnb

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

Date:18.06.2024

Vnb