The New India Assurance Company ... vs Smt. Sunkushala Rukkamma And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3658 Tel

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                M.A.C.M.A.No.1207 OF 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act by the respondent No.2/The New India Assurance

Company Limited, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated

08.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.80 of 2003 on the file of IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,

Ranga Reddy District (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the on 06.01.2001 while

the deceased Jahangir, being the driver of the Jeep bearing

No.AP-07-H-2329 was proceeding from Finance Company at

Mothkur towards Ghatkesar. At the same time, one Tractor

also proceeded ahead of the Jeep. When the Jeep reached

near HPCL Company, the tractor driver applied sudden breaks

without any signals. Then the Jeep driver i.e., deceased

dashed the jeep to the tractor to its behind. As a result, the

jeep driver/deceased fell down and died on the spot. The

Police Ghatkesar registered a case in Cr.No.6/2001. Thus, the

NBK, J MACMA_1207_2007

mother of the deceased has claimed Rs.4,36,500/- towards

compensation for the untimely death of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent being the owner

of the crime vehicle remained exparte. The 2nd respondent

filed counter and denied the manner of accident narrated by

the petitioner and stated that the respondent No.2/insurer is

not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-7-H- 2329?

2) Whether the accident vehicle was insured with R2 and there is any violation of policy conditions?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 and PW-

2 are examined and marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the

crime vehicle was responsible for the accident and accordingly

NBK, J MACMA_1207_2007

awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

with costs. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the

respondent No.2 has filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent/appellant

strongly contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have

dismissed the claim petition but erroneously allowed the same

and further failed to see that just because an additional

amount of Rs.15/- was paid to cover the liability of the paid

driver will not give rise a right to the claimant to file claim

petitioner under Section 166 of the M.V.Act.

10. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident

has occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the

driver of the lorry and came to the conclusion that the

accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the jeep

i.e., deceased. It is to be seen that as per the evidence on

record, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

deceased only who was a jeep driver, working under the

NBK, J MACMA_1207_2007

employment of respondent No.1, who is none other than paid

driver, for which an additional premium of Rs.15/- has already

been paid, as admitted by the appellant.

11. Further, it is the contention of the appellant that the

claimant ought to have filed an application before competent

authority i.e., Commission for Workmen Compensation but, as

per Section 167 of M.V.Act, legal heirs of the deceased can

seek their claim either under M.V.Act or Workmen

Compensation Act but, cannot claim both the Acts. In the

instance case, no proof is supplied to the effect that the

claimant had sought relief under the both Acts. In view of the

foregoing discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the

finding of the Tribunal and there are no grounds to interfere

with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and the appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

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

award and decree dated 08.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.80 of

2003 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions

Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. There shall be no order as

to costs.

NBK, J MACMA_1207_2007

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

07.11.2023 VRKS