Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs Guddevandla Ramanaiah, on 24 April, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3518 of 2014
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa 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 section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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, after VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014 Page 2 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023 crossing Jyothi village, at about 3.30 p.m., the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle at the turning and applied sudden brakes, resulting which, the tractor and trailer fell into the stream on the right side and the coolies, who were sitting in the trailer sustained bleeding injuries. The claimant, who was travelling in the said tractor sustained crush injury over left foot and laceration on left zygomatic region and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters by denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the respondents are 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 received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 on 07.02.2012?
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 3 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation, if so what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 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.2,51,600/- 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 07.02.2012 at noon time the petitioner and other coolies boarded the tractor and trailer VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014 Page 4 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023 bearing Nos.AP 04 AA 6414 and 6415 at Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village, after crossing Jyothi village, at about 3.30 p.m., the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle at the turning and applied sudden brakes, resulting which, the tractor and trailer fell into the stream on the right side and the coolies, who were sitting in the trailer sustained bleeding injuries, the claimant, who was travelling in the said tractor sustained crush injury over left foot and laceration on left zygomatic region.
12. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A3 attested 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 was 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 driver of Tractor only, the accident was occurred. The Tribunal also came to the same conclusion.
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014 Page 5 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023 Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
13. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner got examined the doctor as PW2. PW2 deposed in his evidence about the disability sustained by the claimant (left leg of the petitioner was amputated below the knee). In order to prove the claim, the petitioner also relied on Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A4 disability certificate and Ex.A5 prescriptions and reports issued by Tulasamma hospital, Kadapa. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate, the claimant sustained a crush injury over left foot, laceration over left zygomatic region and fracture of left femur and disarticulation of left knee was done. Ex.A4 disability certificate reveals that the petitioner suffered with disability of 40%, for which the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,01,600/- towards permanent disability. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons, in total, awarded an amount of Rs.2,51,600/-
VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014
Page 6 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023
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 and the second respondent/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In the pleadings of the petition itself the petitioner and other coolies boarded the Tractor and Trailer at Jyothi village to attend coolie work at Gollapalli village and six 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., VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014 Page 7 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023 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 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.2,51,600/- to the claimant at first instance, later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing Execution Petition without filing independent suit, since first 1 2018 Law Suit (SC) 191, 2 (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014 Page 8 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023 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 15.04.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,51,600/- 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 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: 24.04.2023.
Sj VGKRJ MACMA 3518 of 2014 Page 9 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023 50 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3518 of 2014 24.04.2023 sj