R Subba Rao, Guntur Dist Anr vs Gudi Mahalakshmi, Guntur Dist Dmc 2 ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3734 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

R Subba Rao, Guntur Dist Anr vs Gudi Mahalakshmi, Guntur Dist Dmc 2 ... on 1 May, 2024

APHC010186392016
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                AT 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:
                      829/2016

Between:

   1. R SUBBA RAO, S/O PITCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
      R/O 3-70, KARUMURU VILLAGE, REPALLE MANDAL,
      GUNTUR DISTRICT.

   2. RAMAYANAM RAMA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O SUBBARAO
      HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, DRICER OF TRACTOR
      OF AP 15 AH 3864, R/O 3-70, KARUMURU VILLAGE,
      REPALLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

                                              ...APPELLANT(S)

                                AND

   1. GUDI MAHALAKSHMI, W/O VENKAIAH, AGRD ABOUT 55
      YEARS, R/O. KARUMURU VILLAGE, REPALLE MANDAL,
      GUNTUR DISTRICT & .DMC.

   2. U GANGAIAH, S/O NARASAIAH, R/O GOLIRAMAIAHPALLY,
      RAMADUGU POST, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. (OWNER OF
      TRACTOR BEARING NO.AP 15 AH 3864)

   3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURACE COMPANY LIMITED, REP
      BY ITS DIVL. MANAGER, VUKLAKKI STREET, SALIPET,
      TENALI. [POLICY No. 150804/31/09/02/00004798 VALID
      FROM 17.02.2010 TO 16.02.2011]

                                            ...RESPONDENT(S):
                                    2



The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:

-

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 28.11.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.511 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - XI Additional District Judge, Tenali („Tribunal‟ for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, towards compensation, with regard to the injuries sustained by her, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 19.04.2010 at 12.00 Noon, awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-.

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 19.04.2010 at 12.00 Noon, the petitioner and others are working in the fields at Pedapulivarru Village. At that time, the tractor bearing No. AP 15 AH 3864 („offending vehicle‟ for short) having a maize cutting machine, was working in the field with the help of driver. The driver of the tractor, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. The machine fell down on the petitioner and others. Petitioner received grievous multiple injuries and other injuries all over the body.

(ii) The petitioner and others were shifted to Government Hospital, Repalle for first aid. Later, she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur.

(iii) The matter was reported to police, police registered F.I.R. in Crime No.44 of 2010 under Section 337 I.P.C.

(iv) The petitioner was aged 55 years at the time of accident. She suffered a lot mentally and physically on account of

the accident. She received disability. She spent Rs.10,000/-. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor. Respondent No.1 is the owner and he is vicariously liable to the act of the driver and he is liable to pay the compensation. As the insurer of the offending vehicle, respondent No.2 is also liable to pay compensation. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 having appeared, failed to file written statement. Respondent No.2 appeared and got filed written statement and his contention is that the offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2 and there is no valid policy. Driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. The accident was occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

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

(1) Whether the drier of tractor bearing No. AP 15 AH 3864 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to the petitioner?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation against the respondent Nos.1 and 2?

       (3)    To what relief?
6.     (i)    During the course of enquiry, before the Tribunal,

respondent No.3 was brought on record as registered owner and the respondent No.4 was brought on record as the driver of the vehicle. But they did not choose contest.

(ii) During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked.

On behalf of the contesting respondent No.2, RWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.X1 were marked.

7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, held that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.4 and that respondent No.3 was the registered owner and awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-, towards compensation, against the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 jointly and dismissed the claim against respondent No.2.

8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the unsuccessful respondent Nos.3 and 4, filed the present M.A.C.M.A.

9. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point determination is as follows:

"Whether the award, dated 28.11.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.511 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, in awarding the compensation of Rs.35,000/-, to be paid by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 by absolving the responsibility of respondent No.2, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?"

POINT:

10. Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company and fixing the responsibility against the appellants and the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, as such the compensation needs to be reduced and the responsibility is to be fixed up against the Insurance Company.

11. Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the contesting respondent No.3/Insurance Company, would submit that the Tribunal rightly fixed up the responsibility against respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the claim and the driver had no valid driving license, as such, it is not a appeal filed by the claimant questioning the award and she was satisfied with the quantum of compensation

and she thought of the recovery of the amount from the owner and driver, as such, the appeal is devoid of merits.

12. As against findings made by the Tribunal that, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the tractor/respondent No.4 in the claim is concerned, those are not sought to be disturbed in the grounds of appeal.

13. However, even the evidence of PW.1, proves the fact that she received injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Police registered a case under Ex.A1, pertaining to the accident and filed charge sheet alleging rash and negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the petitioner rightly proved the rash and negligent act against respondent No.4 and that she received the injuries.

14. Allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioner received grievous injuries. However, the fact remained is that wound certificate was not produced. Considering the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, towards grievous injury and further a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards pain and suffering. The quantum so awarded appears to be just and reasonable. It is to be noted that the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the claim. The finding of the Tribunal were that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No.4 and that he had no valid driving license. The Tribunal based its finding basing on the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. According to the evidence of RW.2, he verified the office records and found that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.4 had no valid driving license. There was no cross-examination of RW.1 on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. So, the Insurance Company categorically proved the fact that respondent

No.4 in the claim had no valid driving license. Hence, the Tribunal fixed up responsibility against respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 alone, by absolving respondent No.2 from paying amount.

15. In the present M.A.C.M.A., contention of the appellants is that Tribunal ought to have fixed up responsibility against the Insurance Company. It is to be noted that respondent No.3 in the claim i.e., appellant No.1, who is the registered owner has no say how he allowed appellant No.2/respondent No.4 to drive the offending vehicle, without any valid driving license. It is not their contention that appellant No.2/respondent No.4 has the valid driving license. It is to be noted that it is not an appeal filed by the claimant seeking pay and recovery. It is not the case of the appellants that they are ready to reimburse the Insurance Company if the Insurance Company reimbursed the compensation to the claimant.

16. Viewing from any angle, absolutely there are no merits in the grounds of appeal, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Appellants shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw entire amount, in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

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

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

Vnb

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

Date:01.05.2024

Vnb