Telangana High Court

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance ... vs Ellala Laxmi on 25 April, 2025

                                  1



      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.493 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 24.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2015

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal was that

on 26.03.2014 the deceased and his friend were coming to their

Village from Hyderabad to attend the marriage of their friend, on a

motor bike bearing No.AP-29-BS-7620 and when they reached near

Government Model School, Sadashivanagar at about 9:30 a.m.,

they met with an accident due to wrong parking of a lorry bearing

No.HR-47-B-6663 by its driver. It is their case that the driver of the

said lorry stopped his lorry wrongly in a negligent manner on the

National Highway without taking precautions, instead of parking it

in the by-lane provided on the Highway. The petitioners claimed a

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying averments of the

petition. They further contended that the accident occurred due to ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

the negligence of the rider of motor bike as he did not observe the

stationed lorry in the day light and that there is no negligence of

the driver in parking the lorry.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurer also has filed written statement

denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased and also

further they denied the involvement of the crime vehicle. They

further contended that there was contributory negligence on part of

the rider of the motor bike and also contended that the driver of

the lorry was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the

accident.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of lorry bearing No.HR-47-B/6663 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.18,84,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Rajashekar Reddy, learned

counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order

and decree passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and

weight of evidence and that the Tribunal has committed an error in

holding that there is negligence in parking the lorry. He further

submitted that the deceased driver of the motor bike was solely

responsible for the accident and that he drove his motor bike in a

rash and negligent manner and that in the day light at about 9:30

a.m., he went and hit the stationed lorry, which was stopped on

the left side of the road due to break down. He further argued that

as per the rough sketch of the scene of offence in Ex.B2, the lorry

was stopped on the left side of the road and it is also clearly

evident from the FIR and charge sheet under Ex.A1 and A2 that

there was no negligence in parking the lorry, but the accident

occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor bike.

He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant

amounts under various heads, while granting compensation to the

claimants and thus, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the

Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

submitted that the accident occurred just because the lorry was

parked negligently on the high way and that there is no

contributory negligence of the deceased as rightly held by the

Tribunal. She therefore, prayed to uphold the order and decree of

the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether there was no negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR-47-B-6663 in parking the lorry?

2. Whether there is any contributory negligence of the deceased in riding the motor bike bearing No.AP-29-BS-7620?

3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

4. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

5. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1 & 2:-

a) A perusal of Ex.B2 i.e., Crime Detailed Form shows that the

lorry was parked on the left side of the road and also the rough

sketch further shows that the motor bike went and hit the

stationed lorry from behind. Thus, the contention of the appellant

counsel is that the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur applies to the

present case. The lorry is not stationed in the middle of the road,

but it is stationed to the left side of the road and it is a container

lorry which would be huge in size.

ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

b) A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that it is filed against

the lorry driver and the contents reveal that the container lorry was

parked on NH-44 road in wrong parking area and it would

endanger the ongoing traffic on NH-44.

c) RW1 in his cross examination has admitted that at Column

No.5 of Ex.B2, it is mentioned that motive of offence is mentioned

as negligence of the lorry driver. It is also mentioned in the charge

sheet that the driver of the lorry has parked the vehicle negligently

on the busy highway, without taking it to the parking zone and

thus, it has caused obstruction to the regular traffic on the

National Highway, which resulted in the accident in the present

case. Ex.A1/FIR also discloses the said recitals. RW1 has further

admitted that there are parking ways (lay-bye) on the National

Highways and that the vehicle has to be parked in the said lay-bye

areas. A perusal of Ex.A5/MVI report discloses that the accident is

not due to any mechanical defect. Thus, the contention of the

Insurance Company that the lorry was parked by the side of the

road due to the mechanical defects is falsified. Thus, the lorry was

parked on the National Highway which is a busy road, without

parking it in a lay-bye. When it is not due to any mechanical

defect, the lorry driver could have as well parked it in the area

provided for parking the heavy vehicles, the said precaution is not ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

taken by the lorry driver. Therefore, the accident occurred due to

the negligent parking of the lorry. Hence, it is held that there is no

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but the

accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the lorry on the

National Highway by its driver without taking any precautions.

Points No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

a) The second contention of the appellant is that the

compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive.

b) The deceased was an Engineering Student, the petitioners

have filed Ex.A8 and A9. Ex.A8 is the Study and Conduct

Certificate issued by the TRR College of Engineering and Ex.A9 is

the SSC and Intermediate Memorandum of Marks which shows

that he passed Intermediate in March 2010. Ex.A8 is the Bonafide

Certificate issued by the TRR College of Engineering and

Technology showing that the deceased was pursuing B.Tech for the

academic years 2010-2014 and that he expired on 26.03.2014,

thus he was a final year student and they have also filed the

project reports submitted by the deceased to his college under

Ex.A14. Thus, the petitioners asserted that the deceased is an

Engineering Student and he has good prospects to earn around

more than Rs.30,000/- per month, but his untimely death has

resulted in huge loss to the bereaved family members.

ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

c) They also got examined PW3, who is also a Student of TRR

College of Engineering and he used to study together with the

deceased in B.Tech and that campus selections were conducted in

the month of January, 2014 and that the deceased was offered a

job in MNC with a salary of Rs.6,50,000/- per annum, but no

documentary evidence has been produced before the Tribunal.

Thus, the evidence of PW3 is of no avail to the petitioners in

proving their contention.

d) Keeping in view of the fact that he is an Engineering Student,

the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as

Rs.12,000/- per month and has further followed the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 1, by adding future

prospects and also has taken the right multiplier as '18' to be

adopted, as the deceased was aged 21 years as per Ex.A9 and has

awarded compensation which is found to be just and reasonable.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:-

In view of the finding arrived at Point Nos.1 to 3, there is no

need to interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.493_2021

16. Point No.5:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 24.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2015 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I VIII

Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. No costs.