United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs P Sathaiah And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 814 Tel

Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs P Sathaiah And 2 Others on 27 February, 2024

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2112 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 22.02.2016 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal),

in M.V.O.P.No.585 of 2012, Respondent No.2/Insurance company

has filed the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the

learned Tribunal.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the

father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased- P.Shiva

Kumar. As stated by the petitioners, on 24.06.2012 at about

12.30p.m., while the deceased was returning from bus depot after

completion of his duty and while he was walking on the road and

when reached near Musheerabad bus depot at B.E. Limited

Company on foot path, suddenly, one scooter bearing No.AP-11F-

2932 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed on

wrong side of the road and dashed the deceased. As a result, the

deceased received grievous injuries besides multiple fractures all

over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General

MGP,J MACMA.NO.2112 of 2017

Hospital and was admitted as inpatient and later, he was shifted to

RTC Hospital, Tarnaka and when his condition became very

serious, he was shifted to Image Hospital, Ameerpet and while

undergoing treatment, he died on 27.06.2012. Police registered

FIR under Sections 337 and 304A IPC and took up investigation.

It is further stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged

30 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident and is

working as RTC Bus Conductor in APSRTC, Musheerabad depot,

Hyderabad and was earning an amount of Rs.8,647/- per month

and due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners lost their

bread winner and their family became destitute and hence, filed a

petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle, did not contest

the case and remained exparte. Respondent No.2-Insurance

company filed its counter and denied the averments of the claim

petition including, cause of incident, occurrence of accident, age,

wages and also contended that the accident occurred only due to

the negligence of the deceased and there was no rash and

negligence on part of the rider of the scooter and further contended

that the rider of the scooter-Sri R.Narsimha Rao was not made as

necessary party to the proceedings and hence, the petition is not

maintainable for mis-joinder of necessary parties and hence, liable

MGP,J MACMA.NO.2112 of 2017

to be dismissed and that the claim of compensation is excess and

exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed

issues and conducted trial. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner

was examined as PW1 and got examined PW2 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A10 on their behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2, RWs

1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 & B2 and Exs.X1 and X2 were

marked.

6. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both

sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation of

Rs.11,30,000/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal by Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

7. Heard the submission of Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned

Standing counsel for Insurance company as well as Sri Indrasena

Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

8. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

Insurance company is that the rider of the scooter was not having

driving license as on the date of accident as the driving license was

expired and that a case has been registered by the Police under

Section 337 and 304-A IPC and charge sheet was filed under

Section 181 of M.V.Act and further, contended that the learned

MGP,J MACMA.NO.2112 of 2017

Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that as the deceased, being

Bachelor, instead of deducting 50% income towards his personal

expenses as per settled law reported in the case of Sarla Verma

Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation 1, it deducted 1/3 amount, which is

contrary to the settled law and hence, prayed to allow the appeal

by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

9. Per contra, learned Standing counsel for respondent argued

that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects has

awarded just and reasonable compensation for which interference

of this Court is unwarranted.

10. Now the point that arise for consideration is,

Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from any

irregularity?

11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

filed by both sides. The 1st petitioner, who is the father of the

deceased, reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed

about the manner of accident. As PW1 is not an eye witness to the

accident, he got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the

accident and he deposed that on 24.06.2012, at about 12.30a.m.

while he was standing at BE Limited Company, Musheerabad, he

2009 ACJ 1298

MGP,J MACMA.NO.2112 of 2017

noticed one person who is walking on the road and suddenly one

scooter bearing No.AP-11F-2932 came in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries besides multiple injuries all

over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General

Hospital in '108' Ambulance and later, he came to know that the

deceased died due to the said injures.

12. In the cross-examination, he stated that he witnessed the

accident at a distance of 20 feet from the road. Though PWs 1 & 2

were cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was elicited to

disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, considering the evidence of

PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, the police laid charge

sheet against the driver of the scooter.

13. The another aspect that was argued by the learned Standing

Counsel for Insurance company is that the rider of the scooter is

not having valid driving license as on the date of accident and the

same was expired. In order to prove the same, the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company got examined RWs 1 & 2 and got

marked Exs.X1 and X2 -Driving license abstract. In the cross-

examination, RW1 denied the suggestion that he is not the

competent authority to speak about the driving license. However,

he stated that based on Ex.X2-Driving license abstract and as per

MGP,J MACMA.NO.2112 of 2017

Ex.X1-authorization letter, he is deposing in the court. RW2, who

is the Assistant Manager of Insurance Company, deposed that

Ex.B2 policy was in force as on the date of accident and the

deceased is the third party to the accident and it covers the third

party risk. The learned Tribunal, though accepted the fact that the

driving license as per Ex.X2 -driving license abstract for license

No.66731993 has been expired, but by relying upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Iyyapan Vs.United India

Insurance Co.Ltd. 2, has awarded compensation by fastening the

liability against respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and

insurer of the crime vehicle.

14. This Court is of the considered opinion that when it is

proved through RWs 1 & 2 that the driving license was expired as

on the date of accident and driver is not holding driving license,

fastening the liability against respondent No.2-Insurance company

can be set-aside and this Court is inclined to adopt pay and

recovery policy as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Nanjappan And

Ors. 3, wherein, the Hon'ble Court held as under:-

2013(5) ALD 62(SC)

AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1340

MGP,J MACMA.NO.2112 of 2017

"... ... ... We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice

will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding."

15. With the above observation, the MACMA is partly allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

Dt.27.02.2024 ysk