Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Chitikala Ramulamma And 6 Others on 15 February, 2021
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
MACMA.No.335 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant - insurance company
challenging the order dated 31.01.2008 in OP.No.452 of 2006 passed
by the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. The claimants are the family members and dependants of the
deceased, Chitkala Ramulu, who died in a road accident. It is the case
of the claimants that on 04.04.2006 at about 4.30 PM the deceased
was travelling from Kondurg to Parigi in an auto bearing No.AP 22 U
5772 in order to purchase paints. On the way, on the outskirts of
Kondurg, the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent
manner in a high speed and dashed an unknown vehicle going in the
opposite direction, as a result of which the inmates of the auto i.e.
Ramulu and others sustained grievous injuries and Ramulu succumbed
to the injuries on the way to hospital. Thus, the claimants filed the OP
seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. As such, the respondents
being the owner and insurer of the vehicle respectively are liable to
pay compensation.
3. The claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to
A10. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and
Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
4. Chekala Venkataiah, P.W.2, is the eye witness to the accident.
He stated that the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against an unknown vehicle, as a result,
the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The tribunal below, taking
into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the charge
sheet, Ex.A7 and owing to the fact that there is no rebuttal evidence
from the respondents, opined that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as against the
claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the tribunal below, by taking into account the
annual income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-; age of the deceased as
48 years and applying multiplier '13', arrived at a figure of
Rs.2,16,000/-. After deducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses,
the compensation towards loss of dependency was arrived at
Rs.1,44,000/-. The tribunal below awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss
of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/-
towards loss of estate. Thus, in total, Rs.1,63,5000/- was awarded as
compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved
thereby, the present appeal.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company
submitted that the accident, allegedly, occurred when the auto collided
with an unknown vehicle. There is no proof adduced by the claimants
that the driver of the auto was solely responsible for the accident.
He further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not
have an effective license as on the date of the accident. Ex.A6, driving
license, clearly shows that the license was renewed on 06.04.2006
whereas the accident took place on 04.04.2006. Thus, the insurance
company is not liable.
7. In the evidence of R.W.1, it was asserted that the driver of the
auto did not have valid license. It is stated that some unknown vehicle
hit the auto; the police could not trace the unknown vehicle and the
driver of the auto is unnecessarily involved and the insurance company
is not liable at all.
8. However, in the light of the evidence of P.W.2, the tribunal
below came to the conclusion that it was the driver of the auto,
who was primarily responsible for causing the accident. Since
according to the evidence of P.W.2, the driver of the auto drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed an unknown
vehicle, this Court, being an appellate Court, is not convinced to take a
different view.
9. On the point of liability of the insurance company, since the
driver of the auto was not holding valid license on the date of the
accident, it is settled law that the insurance company cannot be
exonerated merely because the owner of the crime vehicle or the
driver of the vehicle has violated the terms of the insurance policy.
The Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.
SWARAN SINGH1 laid down the principle of 'pay and recover'.
The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and later
recover the same from the owner/driver of the vehicle in case there is
violation of terms of the insurance policy.
In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the
appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
__________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
February 15th, 2021
DSK
2004 ACJ 1
