United India Insurance Company ... vs Dommati Rajeshwari 7 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 968 Tel

                 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.2762 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company, questioning the award and decree, dated 04.07.2013

passed in O.P.No.161 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Vehicle Accident Claims Tribuna-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar

(for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death

of the deceased Dommati Mallesh @ Mallaiah, who died in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 17.07.2019. It is stated that on

that day after having lunch in a mess at Takkellapadu Village, the

deceased, along with other employees of Nagarjuna Sagar Canal

Department, were returning to their work spot in a Jeep bearing

No.AP-21-D-1134 and when the said Jeep reached at Takkellapadu

Guntur Branch Canal Bridge, the 1st respondent, while negotiating a

curve towards canal bund, drove it with high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner and lost control, due to which the Jeep fell

GSD, J Macma_2762_2013

in the canal and the deceased received fatal injuries to his vital

organs. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sattenapalli, where the doctors declared him dead. On a

complaint, a case in Crime No.85 of 2009 has been registered

against the 1st respondent. The claimants filed aforesaid O.P.

against respondent Nos.1 to 3, being the driver, owner and insurer

of the aforesaid Jeep, respectively, claiming compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the manner in

which the accident took place including the age, income and

avocation of the deceased. It is also contended that the Policy

issued in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the offending

Jeep was an Act Policy and that there was no insurance coverage

to the inmates of the said vehicle, as such, the 3rd respondent is

not liable to pay compensation.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

GSD, J Macma_2762_2013

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Commander Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP-21-D-1134?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the 1st

respondent and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,15,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly

and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-

Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well

considered order by taking into consideration all the aspects, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5%

GSD, J Macma_2762_2013

per annum. The Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Jeep, to which the Tribunal has categorically

observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and has answered in

favour of the claimants and against the respondents. With regard

to Issue No.2 as to whether the claimants are entitled for

compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom, in the light

of the decided case laws of the Apex Court, under the heads of

conventional charges and future prospects, the claimants are

entitled for more compensation. Since this is an appeal filed by

the Insurance Company and in the absence of cross appeal or cross-

objections filed by the claimants, this Court is not inclined to go

into the other issues and this Court finds that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Insofar as the

liability of appellant is concerned, the Tribunal has categorically

held that a perusal of Ex.B1 would show that the policy covers the

risk of third parties, compulsory P.A. to owner-cum-driver and

W.C. to employee therefore, it can be safely held that Ex.B1 policy

had coverage to third parties, including the deceased. The 2nd

GSD, J Macma_2762_2013

respondent as the owner of the crime vehicle is vicariously liable

for the acts of his driver, i.e. the 1st respondent. The 3rd

respondent as the insurer has to indemnify the liability of the 2nd

respondent in the event of any eventualities, as per the terms and

conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 are

jointly and severally liable to pay the above determined

compensation to the petitioners". Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 03.03.2022 gkv