The Divisonal Manager vs Sri. Bontha Ramachandra Reddy 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 3726 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Divisonal Manager vs Sri. Bontha Ramachandra Reddy 2 Others on 1 May, 2024

APHC010154112016
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                            PRADESHAT AMARAVATI               [3364]


   WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND
                     TWENTY FOUR

                             PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2784/2016

Between:

  1. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, O/o
     Corporation Bank Compound, Subhash Road, Anantapuramu.
                                        ...Appellant/Respondent No.2
                                 AND

  1. Sri Bontha Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Sri Chinna Anki Reddy, aged
     about 40 years, Cultivation, R/o Bondla Dinne Village,
     Peddapappuru Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
                                   ...Respondent/Claim petitioner.

  2. Sri K. Raja Reddy, S/o Sri K. Sesha Reddy, Major, R/o
     D.No.15/1130, Sanjeeva Nagar, Tadipatri Town, Anantapuramu
     District, owner of Eicher van No.A.P.02-U-8020.

  3. Sri Rajasekhar, S/o Sri Janaki Ramudu, Major, R/o D.No.2-936,
     Jayanagar Colony, Tadipatri Town, Anantapuramu District (Driver
     of offending vehicle).
                               ...Respondents/Respondent Ns.1 & 3

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

-

Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 22.07.2016 in Original Petition No.711 of 2011, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapuramu ("Tribunal" for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the

claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 26.12.2006, awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3) The case of the claimant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that he engaged Eicher van bearing No.A.P.02-U-8020 (hereinafter will be referred to as "offending vehicle") and loaded vegetables and fruit baskets to go to Chennai Koyambedu market from his village. He reached near Vijaya Nalluru junction on GNT road on 26.12.2006 at 4-00 a.m. Its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the metro bus that was going on its front. Again he dashed the stationed lorry which was parked by the side of road. Due to said accident, the claimant and its driver received injuries. The cleaner of the offending vehicle died on the spot. Vehicle was badly damaged. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chennai for treatment. He was aged about 40 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing vegetable and fruits business. He sustained grievous fractures and in spite of taking treatment at various hospitals, he was not able to cope up with the inconvenience. He spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Police registered a case in Crime No.585/2006 against the driver in E5 Sholavaram police station, Tamilnadu, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. The first respondent is owner, the second respondent is insurer and the third respondent is driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4) The first and third respondents remained exparte.

5) The second respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the claimant has to prove the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle. He has to prove the age, income and occupation and nature of injuries. Insurance company did not issue any policy covering the risk of passenger in goods vehicle. Offending vehicle is meant for carrying the goods. The status of the injured was unauthorized passenger. Unless, there is no violation of policy, insurance company is not liable. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.

6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal settled the following issues for trail:

(1) Whether the claimant is an unauthorised passenger in the offending vehicle?

(2) Whether the driver of offending vehicle Eicher van bearing No.A.P.02-U-8020 is rash and negligent in driving the vehicle thereby caused the accident in dispute?

(3) Whether the first respondent has violated terms of second respondent insurance policy?

(4) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from which respondent?

(5) To what relief?

7) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14 and Ex.C.1 to

Ex.C.3 were marked. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the second respondent and Ex.B.1 was marked.

8) The tribunal on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered the issues against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. The unsuccessful second respondent felt aggrieved of the award, filed the present MACMA.

9) Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 22.07.2016 in Original Petition No.711 of 2011, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapuramu, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation?

POINT:-

10) Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the injured was no other than the unauthorized passenger, who travelled in the goods vehicle and the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal is not with proper reasons, as such, award needs to be interfered.

11) Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the first respondent, would contend that injured travelled in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods in accordance with law and the compensation that was awarded by the tribunal was on reasonable basis which needs no interference.

12) So far as the findings of the tribunal that the accident occurred was on account of rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle was not sought to be disturbed in the

grounds of appeal. However, the evidence of P.W.1 discloses that he boarded the offending vehicle by loading his vegetables to go to Chennai. He in his chief examination affidavit put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. It is a case of hit made by the driver of offending vehicle to a metro bus and after that a stationed lorry. The evidence of P.W.1 has support from Ex.A.1-copy of FIR and Ex.A.2-translated copy of FIR. Apart from this, police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet under Ex.A.9 against the driver of the offending vehicle.

The driver of the offending vehicle remained exparte. R.W.1, the representative of the insurance company, was not a witness to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.1 has support as above, as such, there was proper evidence let in by the claimant to prove that the accident occurred was on account of rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle.

13) Turning to the contention of the insurance company that the claimant was an unauthorized passenger, there was evidence of R.W.1 in support of such a plea. But the fact remained is that the policy issued by the insurance company was a package policy.

14) As seen from Ex.A.9, copy of charge sheet, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle was loaded with vegetables and fruits. According to the evidence on record the persons, who travelled in the vehicle, were cleaner, claimant and the driver. As seen from the policy copy marked under Ex.B.1, a sum of Rs.200/- was collected under WC to employee 8 and a sum of Rs.75/- was collected under NFPP-1. Further compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver was Rs.100/- . There was no evidence to prove that more than three persons travelled in the vehicle. The claimant being the owner of the goods was entitled to travel in the cabin when there was sufficient seating capacity. The vehicle was meant to transport the goods. Hence, absolutely, the

tribunal with proper reasons held that there were no policy violations. The contention of the appellant that the injured was unauthorized passenger cannot stands to any reason.

15) There is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent-insurance company under Ex.B.1. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

16) Now turning to the quantum of compensation, the contention of the claimant is that he received multiple grievous injuries. The claimant examined P.W.2, the doctor, who treated him. According to him, the claimant was admitted in the hospital i.e., Medicity Hospital, Hyderabad on 10.04.2007 and discharged on 13.04.2007. The claimant underwent cystourethroscopy. He was on SPC for the accident occurred about 3 ½ months ago for which he took treatment at Chennai. Ex.C.1 is the case sheet. Ex.A.12 contains medical bills.

17) The claimant examined P.W.3, another doctor, who deposed that the claimant was admitted in Osmania Hospital on 04.01.2008 and he attended surgery on 02.02.2008 for perineal urethra plasty surgery. Patient was discharged on 26.02.2008. Injury is grievous. Ex.C.2 is the case sheet. Ex.A.13 was some of the medical bills.

18) The claimant also examined P.W.4, the consultant, Ortho surgeon at Viswa Bharathi Hospital. According to him, claimant was admitted in their hospital on 31.12.2006 and he had fracture of left femur, fracture of left ilium and pubic symphisys. He had injury to urinary bladder and urethra. He spoke of the detailed surgery which he attended.

19) By virtue of the evidence let in, it is clear that the claimant sustained fracture to his left femur, fracture of left ilium and pubic

symphisys and also injury to urinary bladder and urethra and multiple surgeries were done. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenditure by looking into Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12. It cannot be held that the tribunal allowed such expenditure without any basis. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards fracture of left femur and Rs.40,000/- towards injury to urinary bladder. The tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of physical discomfort due to said injury. The tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.5,10,000/- and restricted the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- as prayed.

20) Viewing from any angle and considering the plight of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is with proper reasons and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

21) In the result, MACMA is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. The appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from this day.

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

___________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.01.05.2024.

PGR

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

Date: 01.05.2024

PGR