Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shriram General Insurance Co.., Ltd., vs Kamsala Murali Another on 15 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3094 of 2014
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.569 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur and the respondents are the petitioner and first respondent in the said case.
2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application.
3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 18.06.2011.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in a Tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 2 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023 tractor turned turtle, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger in the tractor and trailer?
ii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner causing accident?
iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, from which respondent and to what extent?
iv. To what relief?
VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014
Page 3 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023
7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.
8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant towards compensation.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/ Insurance company filed the present appeal.
10. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference?
11. POINT:-
The case of the petitioner is that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 4 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023 of which, it was turned turtle, due to that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Then immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur in an ambulance and the petitioner was taken treatment as inpatient nearly 20 days and he suffered severe and mental agony. First respondent was set exparte. Second respondent filed counter by pleading that the petitioner is unauthorized passenger in the tractor and that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
12. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.
The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A3 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet clearly goes to show that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer only the accident was occurred and the claimant, who is travelling in the said tractor, fell down and sustained severe injuries. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, because of the rash and negligent driving of first respondent driver only, the accident was occurred.
VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 5 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023
13. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, due to the accident, he sustained grievous fracture injuries to his leg, for which he took treatment at Government General Hospital, Anantapur for a period of 20 days, he got exhibited Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate, which reveals that rods are inserted to his left leg and the petitioner permanently disabled and unable to do his coolie works, for which the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.28,000/- towards the said two fractures sustained by him. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment for healing the injuries. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. In total, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.43,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation. There is no need to interfere with the said quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger, no policy was issued to the trailer and the second respondent/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 6 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023 the compensation. Here it is to be seen there is no separate engine to the trailer, without the tractor, trailer cannot move. As per the material available on record, the crime vehicle/Tractor was insured with Insurance Company under Ex.B1 copy of policy and the driver of the tractor and trailer also possessed valid driving licence to drive the tractor. Therefore, since the driver of tractor is having valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident and the crime vehicle is insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the policy is also on force and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (three Judge Bench) of Singh ram Vs., Nirmala and others1, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim at first instance and later recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle.
15. In the judgment of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others2 it was held that the direction to United India Insurance Company Limited being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to 1 2018 Law Suit (SC) 191, 2 (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 7 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023 negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Company Limited/ respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle without filing any independent suit by filing an Execution Petition against the owner of the crime vehicle.
16. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company is directed to pay the total claim of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant at first instance, later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing Execution Petition without filing independent suit, since first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
17. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, by modifying the order dated 18.12.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.569 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.43,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to pay the claim amount, within one VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 8 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023 month from the date of this judgment, to the claimant at first instance and later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing an Execution Petition and without filing any independent suit. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated: 15.03.2023.
Sj VGKRJ MACMA 3094 of 2014 Page 9 of 9 Dt: 15.03.2023 05 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3094 of 2014 15.03.2023 sj