The New India Assurance Company ... vs K. Ram Reddy And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4323 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4323 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2023

Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Company ... vs K. Ram Reddy And Another on 13 December, 2023

             THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2008
JUDGMENT:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree

dated 13.04.2007 in O.P.No.119 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for

short 'The Tribunal'), the appellant/Insurance Company, who is

respondent No.2 in the said O.P., preferred the present appeal.

2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the

O.P.No.119 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh only), against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, as compensation

to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per

annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Tribunal directed appellant and respondent No.1 to deposit the

said amount jointly and severally.

3. Respondent No.1/claimant filed the claim petition before the

Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for

the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. The

appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal disputing the

liability.

SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008

4. Heard Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.

5. The facts of the case are that on 10.12.2001, while respondent

No.1 and one Mohd. Rafiq were travelling on a scooter bearing No.AP

22/912 from Thimmareddypally to Mahbubnagar and on the way of

Thirumalkucha Thanda, H/o Chinnadarpally, the driver of the tractor

and trailer No.AP 22 T 9217 and 9216 drove the same with high speed

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter, due to which

they fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and they were shifted to

Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Respondent No.1 filed

O.P.No.119 of 2003 and Mohd.Rafiq filed O.P.No.120 of 2003 against

the owner and insurer of the said Tractor and Trailer claiming

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- each due to the injuries sustained by

them.

6. The Tribunal on considering the entire evidence, both oral and

documentary, passed a common award dated 13.04.2007 in

O.P.Nos.119 of 2003 and 120 of 2003 finding that the accident

occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and

the Tribunal directed the appellant and respondent No.1-owner of the

tractor to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each to respondent

No.1 herein and the petitioner in O.P.No.120 of 2023, jointly and

SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008

severally. Challenging the Award passed in O.P.No.119 of 2003,

respondent No.2/Insurance Company has preferred the present

appeal.

7. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that on

the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having

valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle, which is a violation of

conditions of the policy, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable

to pay the compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit

that the Tribunal has fixed the liability on both owner and insurer

jointly and severally and awarded just compensation, which needs no

interference by this Court.

9. With regard to the manner in which the accident took place, a

perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Tribunal has

framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred resulting in

injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the

vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 22 T 9217 and 9216 by

its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PWs

1 and 2, who are eye witnesses and injured persons, coupled with the

documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A-1 and A-12, has categorically

observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008

driving of the driver of the Tractor and answered the issue in favour of

the petitioner and against the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of

the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the

finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor resulting in injuries to the

petitioner.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking

into consideration the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the

medical bills, the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest @ 7.5% per

annum. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere

with the award passed by the Tribunal.

11. Insofar as the liability is concerned, learned Standing Counsel

for the appellant specifically contended that the driver of the Tractor

was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and as

there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance

company is not liable to pay the compensation and without

considering the same, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the

appellant-insurer and respondent No.2-owner of the Tractor jointly

and severally.

SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008

12. There is no dispute that by the time of accident, the offending

vehicle was insured with the appellant and due to disqualification of

the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, appellant stating that

their compnay is not liable to pay compensation. In that regard, it is

relevant to apt the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

between Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 30 of the order

held as follows:

"30. The State Government has to maintain a register to motor vehicles under Rule 45 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight, unladen weight, etc. The Central Government has the power to frame rules under Section 27, inter alia, regarding minimum qualification, forms, and contents of the licences, etc. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the definition of "Light motor vehicle" under Section 2(21) of the Act includes transport vehicle of the class and weight defined therein. The transport vehicle or omnibus would be light motor vehicle, gross vehicle weight of which, and also a motor car or tractor or roadroller, unladen weight of which, does not exceed 7500 kg, and can be driven by holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicle."

13. In view of the above decision, this Court deems it appropriate

that there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the

Tribunal regarding the aspect of fixing the liability on the part of the

insurer and owner of the Tractor jointly and severally and the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

(2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663

SKS,J MACMA.No.1474_2008

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

judgment and decree dated 13.04.2007 in O.P.No.119 of 2003 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand