Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Ganganapalle Obulamma 3 Others on 27 April, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.837 of 2015
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the petitioners 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 claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Ganganapalli Ananda Rao in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 07.02.2012.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 07.02.2012 at noon time the deceased Ananda Rao and other coolies boarded the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 at Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village, when the vehicle reached Chakralavanka 2 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 turning near Jyothi village, the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, resulting which, the tractor and trailer turned turtle, as a result of which, the deceased, who was sitting in the trailer received fatal injuries and died on the spot and the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased in a Motor Vehicles Accident.
5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the deceased Ganganapalli Ananda Rao died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on
07.02.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. at Chakralavanka near Jyothi village of Sidhout Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 3 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 of the 1st respondent being insured with 2nd respondent?
ii. Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation?
iii. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?
iv. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of 2nd respondent RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was 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.5,00,000/- to the claimants 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?
4 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015
11. POINT:-
The case of the petitioner is that on 07.02.2012 at noon time the deceased Ananda Rao and other coolies boarded the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 at Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village, when the vehicle reached Chakralavanka turning near Jyothi village, the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, resulting which, the tractor and trailer turned turtle, as a result of which, the deceased, who was sitting in the trailer received fatal injuries and died on the spot.
12. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner herself got examined as PW1. PW1 is not an eye- witness. The claim petitioners got examined the eye-witness as PW2. The evidence of PW2 clearly shows that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle only, the accident was occurred and the petitioners also relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 and due to his rashness and negligence only, the accident was 5 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 occurred and the deceased, who was travelling in the tractor and trailer, sustained severe injuries, later succumbed to injuries. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, because of the rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor only, the accident was occurred. The Tribunal also gave the same finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the learned Tribunal.
13. The petitioners in this case are claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of deceased G.Ananda Rao in a road accident. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was a coolie and milk vendor and earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month by the date of his death. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons fixed an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the monthly income of deceased and it comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Here the dependents are three in number. So the learned Tribunal has to deduct 1/3rd of the said amount. After deducting 1/3rd amount, it comes to Rs.40,000/- per annum and the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '14' and it comes to Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 14 = Rs.5,60,000/-).
6 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 Accordingly, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- towards total compensation.
14. On considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.7,10,000/-, but the claim is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-, since the claimants claimed Rs.5,00,000/- only. No appeal is filed by the claimants against the said finding. Therefore, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only.
15. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and the second respondent/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In the pleadings of the petition itself, the deceased and other coolies boarded the Tractor and Trailer at Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village and six 7 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 persons were travelling in the trailer. 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.
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 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 1 2018 Law Suit (SC) 191, 2 (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 8 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 (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.5,00,000/- to the claimants 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 12.03.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. It is held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @6% 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 month from the date of this judgment, to the claimants 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 claimants entitled to 9 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. The award of Tribunal in all other respects regarding apportionment of amount shall stands confirmed. 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: 27.04.2023.
Sj 10 VGKRJ MACMA 837 of 2015 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.837 of 2015 27.04.2023 sj