Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shriram Generalinsurance Company ... vs Sageli Siva Sankar And Another on 25 October, 2024
APHC010888522018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3084/2018
Between:
Shriram General insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT
AND
Sageli Siva Sankar And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. A JAYANTHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the order, dated 15.11.2017 in
M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty (hereinafter
called as „the Tribunal‟).
2. The appellant is the insurer of lorry bearing
No.AP 24 W 4555 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle").
The Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant and Respondent No.2 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 claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:
i) On the fateful day of 28.05.2011 at about 3.30 a.m., at
PACS Godown, Velmal Village, Nizamabad District, when
petitioner found one lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 4555 was parked
in front of his lorry, by instructions of his father, he get down from
his lorry and asked the route of 1st respondent lorry bearing
No.AP 24 W 4555 driver, while so on, the offending lorry
suddenly started and moved with a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the petitioner and as a result of which the
petitioner sustained blood injuries from both the legs. The
petitioner was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kadapa and
from there to Vijaya Hospital, Kurnool and there from to CMC
Hospital, Vellore, for treatment.
ii) Due to the said injuries, he claimed compensation of
Rs.11,50,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein.
5. The 1st respondent was remained ex parte.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed statement denying the averments in
the petition and pleaded that the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident
did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.
The claim of the petitioner is extremely high and excessive. Therefore, the 2nd
respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prays that the petition be
dismissed.
7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the
material:
"1. Whether there was a road accident occurred on 28.05.2011 at
about 03.30 A.M., at PACS Velmal Godown, Velmal Village of
Nizamabad District, due to the rash and negligent act of the driver
of lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 4555 belongs to the first respondent,
as a result of which petitioner sustained injuries or not?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom of the respondents?
3. Whether the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant
as contended by 2nd respondent?
4. To what relief?"
8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined
and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Exs.X1 to X6. On behalf of the
Respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
9. 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 claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.11,50,000/-
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of
realization against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the
appellant/insurer.
11. Heard Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
D.Dorababu, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned
counsel for the Respondent No.1/claimant.
12. Now, the only point that arises for determination is "whether the award
passed by the Tribunal is liable to set aside, if so, to what extent?"
13. POINT:
It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the
accident and that the claimant did not prefer any appeal against the order of
the Tribunal.
14. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer
are that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner/injured
and that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a
valid and effective driving license at the time of the incident. Consequently, the
appellant argues that Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is not liable to
pay compensation, and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to
be set aside.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/claimant
submits that the Trial Court has given finding in vivid terms that how the
accident occurred and the liability of the driver driving the vehicle. Since he
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner the accident occurred.
16. In light of the above contentions, this Court has examined the material
available on record and observed that there is clear negligence on the part of
the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 4555, which belongs to the 1 st
respondent/owner. Consequently, the defense has no legs to stand.
17. As for the other defense raised by the appellant, it is asserted that the
driver of the vehicle involved in the crime did not possess a valid driving
license at the time of the accident. However, no evidence has been presented
to substantiate this claim. The only argument made is that the driver of the
vehicle lacked a valid driving license, which does not provide sufficient
grounds for this assertion.
18. In the absence of any material on record, this Court cannot give any
weight to the defense.
19. 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.
20. Thereby, viewing of any angle, this Court does not find any fault with the
conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus,
this appoint is answered accordingly.
21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand vacated.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date:25.10.2024
KNN
