Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Angirekula Pentaiah And 2 Ors on 23 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.207 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance company and Sri Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao,
learned counsel for respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
award dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam (for short 'Tribunal') in
M.T.O.P.No.514 of 2005 and thereby sought to set-aside the
award against the insurance company.
3. The appellant herein is the respondent no.2-insurance
company, respondent nos.1 and 2 herein are the claim petitioners
and respondent no.3 herein is the respondent No.1-owner of the
offending vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the
parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the
Tribunal.
LNA,J
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that
A.Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was
working as Hamili on Lorry bearing registration No.AAD-5765
(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) to load and unload
of cotton; that on 24.02.2005, at about 1330 hours when the lorry
was crossing Korlakunta village, the driver of the lorry drove the
same in rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to
which, he lost control over the steering while turning and dashed
to a toddy tree. On account of which, the lorry turned turtle and
the deceased sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. The
Police, Kukkunoor Police Station, registered a case in Crime
No.18/2005 against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed
charge sheet.
5. According to the claimants, deceased was aged 22 years,
hale and healthy as on the date of accident, and was used to
attend Hamali work for loading and unloading on offending
vehicle and used to earn Rs.150/- per day and contribute the
same to the family; that due to the death of deceased in a road
accident, the claimants lost their earning member in the family.
LNA,J
Hence, they filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act,
1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal
against the respondents.
6. Respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle filed counter
denying all the allegations in the claim petition and contended
that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of offending
vehicle and he is having valid driving license and that the said
vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company
and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation.
7. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter denying
manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity of the
deceased. It is further contended that deceased was travelling
as unauthorized passenger in goods vehicle, as such, insurance
company is not liable to pay compensation; that the amount of
compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. In
additional counter, it is contended that as per charge sheet,
when the offending vehicle reached at the outskirts of
Korlakunta village, the deceased who was in the body of the
LNA,J
lorry, all of a sudden, got jumped down from the lorry, as a
result, he died instantaneously for his own negligence,
however, there was no negligence on the part of the driver and
as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.AAD- 5765?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any
compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of
the respondents?
iii) To what relief ?
9. In order to substantiate the case on behalf of claimants,
P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On
behalf of appellant-insurance Company, RW.1 was examined and
Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked.
10. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral and
documentary evidence, came to conclusion that the accident took
LNA,J
place due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and
awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit
of amount, payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
11. During the course of hearing of appeal, the learned counsel
for appellant-insurance company, while reiterating the averments
in the counter filed before the Tribunal, submitted that Tribunal
erred in awarding the compensation contrary to the evidence on
record; that the deceased was unauthorized passenger travelling
in the goods vehicle, as such, the insurance company is not liable
to pay compensation; that Tribunal should have taken the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum as
there is no cogent evidence with regard to his earnings and
finally, prayed to set aside the award against the insurance
company.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants submitted
that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation
and the appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the
LNA,J
award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
Consideration:
13. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant insofar
as disputing the occurrence of accident is concerned, before the
Tribunal, P.W.2-B.Venkanna, who is cited as eye witness to the
accident, was examined and he deposed that he witnessed the
accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 is
corroborated with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1-FIR,
Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-inquest panchanama, Ex.A4-
postmortem examination report, Ex.A5- Motor Vehicle
Inspector's report, which clearly show that accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. In respect of the contention of learned counsel for appellant
that deceased was unauthorized passenger of the goods vehicle
and therefore, insurance is not liable to pay compensation, as per
LNA,J
the evidence of P.W.1, deceased and others were travelling in the
offending vehicle as Hamalies to load and unload the goods as on
the date of accident. Perusal of record, as per the investigation of
police also, it is proved that the deceased and others were
travelling as Hamalies in the lorry for loading and unloading the
cotton in the lorry. In view of the above, this Court is of the
opinion the deceased was working as Hamali in the lorry to load
and unload the cotton as on the date of the accident and
therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that deceased
was an unauthorized passenger travelling in the lorry at the time
of accident was not convincing and therefore, the same is
rejected.
15. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for
appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the
deceased, without there being any evidence, though no
documentary evidence is placed on record by the claimants with
regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal considering
the profession of the deceased as Hamali, age and health
condition, had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-
LNA,J
per month, which in considered opinion of this Court, the
Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.2,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances of the present
case, date of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of
living etc., and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the
monthly income of the deceased.
16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the
cogent findings given by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to
be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. The appellant-
insurance company is directed to pay the compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount if
any already deposited by it. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 23.04.2024
Fm/kkm
