Telangana High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs P. Pentaiah , Pedda Pentaiah, on 25 January, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.939 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against
the Order dated 16.01.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2008
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
I-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.
2. The claimants/parents filed M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2008
claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of the
deceased, P.Kurumurthy @ Kurumaiah in the motor vehicle
accident occurred on 30.04.2008.
3. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary
evidence granted an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company. No representation for
respondents/claimants.
5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that
the trial Court wrongly considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and
2 and Exs.A1 to A4 documents and awarded compensation.
The trial Court failed to consider that the claim petition filed
is a fault liability and respondent No.3 vehicle was not crime
vehicle and no case was registered against the driver of
respondent No.3. As such, the insurance company is not
liable to pay compensation and respondent Nos.1 and 2 can
claim compensation from the owner and insurer of the auto
trolley. Non joinder of the parties the claim petition is liable to
be dismissed.
6. He further contended that the accident was occurred
due to the negligence of auto trolley, but the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 filed a case against the owner of the jeep even
though the driver of the auto was at fault. The driver of the
auto has no valid license. Respondent No.3 entrusted the
vehicle to his driver willfully and knowingly that the driver
did not posses any valid and effective driving license and the
respondent No.3 violated the terms and conditions of the
insurance company, the insurance company is not liable to
pay any compensation. The trial Court did not consider the
compensation against owner and insurer of the auto trolley.
7. The case of claimants is that on 30.04.2008 afternoon,
the deceased and others were travelling in a jeep bearing
No.AP-22-U-3121 at Wanaparthy to Buddara Village and the
deceased was sitting towards right side on the back seat of
the driver. When they reached in the limits of Thatiparthy
village at about 01.30 P.M., the driver of the jeep drove the
vehicle at high speed in rash and negligent manner and
dashed the opposite auto-trolley bearing No.AP-22-V-8773.
As a result, the deceased, sustained grievous injuries on
forehead on legs and he was shifted to Government Civil
Hospital, Wanaparthy and they referred the deceased to
Hyderabad, but succumbed to the injuries on the way to the
hospital. A case was registered in Cr.No.37 of 2008 under
Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the auto-trolley.
8. In the F.I.R, it was stated that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the auto trolley bearing No.AP-22-V-
8773 and after dashing the jeep, the driver of the auto-trolley
left the vehicle and fled away from that place. As the case
was registered under Section 338 of IPC, later it was altered
to 304 IPC.
9. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed and it
was clearly held that the driver of the auto trolley bearing
No.AP-22-V-8773 drove in a rash and negligent manner while
proceeding to Wanaparthy.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for
insurance company is though the F.I.R and charge sheet was
filed against the driver of the auto trolley, P.Ws.1 and 2 filed
the O.P. against the driver and owner of the jeep and the
Insurer of the jeep. The trial Court failed to consider the
contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the auto
trolley and jeep. In a decision made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in T.O.Anthony Vs Karvarnan 1, in which it was held
that when a person is injured as a result of negligence on the
part of two or more wrongdoers, each wrongdoer is jointly
and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire
damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them.
11. The trial Court without appreciating the facts fixed the
liability on the owner and insurer of the jeep. It is not the
case of hit and run. In this case, immediately after the
2008 ACJ 1165 (SC)
accident, FIR was registered against the driver of the auto
and charge sheet was filed after the investigation and none of
the petitioners filed claim petition against the owner and
insurer of auto, they filed only against the owner and insurer
of the jeep ignoring the documents like FIR and charge sheet
and they could not substantiate whey they have not filed the
petition against owner and insurer of the auto.
12. Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and Court
should interpret the provisions of law leniently that does not
mean the Court can ignore the documents filed by claimants
i.e., FIR and charge sheet. The deceased was aged 23 years
and the claimants has lost grown-up son in an accident, but
it is for the claimants to prove their case before claiming
compensation and in this case though they have filed several
documents regarding the age and income of the deceased, it
is for them to prove the involvement of the crime vehicle, but
they failed to do so. The trial Court erroneously fixed the
liability without considering the FIR and charge sheet and
misinterpreted the provisions of Section 163-A of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988. Therefore the order of the trial Court is
liable to be set aside.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the
order dated 16.01.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2008 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional
District Judge at Mahabubnagar. There shall be no order as
to costs.
14. As per the proceedings dated 22.04.2013, there was an
interim stay subject to the deposit of half of the decreetal
amount within a period of eight weeks from 22.04.2013. As
per proceedings dated 22.08.2013, this Court observed that
the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited by 1st respondent without furnishing any security
and accordingly vacate petition was dismissed. Considering
the fact that the insurance company has already deposited
the amount and the parties are also withdrawn the same, and
thus this Court finds it reasonable that appellant herein is
not entitled for the refund of the deposited amount.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Dated: 25.01.2024
CHS
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 25.01.2024
CHS
