Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
United India Insurance Company ... vs Chavadi Ganga Raju 2 Ors on 25 June, 2024
APHC010743242016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
979/2016
Between:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED, REP BY
ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER O/O.DIVISIONAL OFFICE:
KADAPA.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. CHAVADI GANGA RAJU, S/O.BALA GANGAIAH @ BALA
GANGULU, HINDU SHEEP AND MILK BUSINESS
R/O.TADIGOTLA VILALGE, C.K.DINNE MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
2. C V VARA PRASAD, S/O.KODANDA RAMAIAH, HINDU
OWNER OF RTC HIRE BUS BEARING NO.AP 04 T 9576
R/O.7/521-40A, NGO COLONY, KADAPA.
3. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR O/O.RTC CROSS ROAD,
HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT(S):
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:-
Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 26.02.2009, in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2006, on the file of the Motor 2 Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - First Additional District Judge, Kadapa („Tribunal‟ for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, with regard to the injuries received by the petitioner/claimant, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 06.10.2005 at 06.30 a.m., awarded a sum of Rs.98,114/- as compensation.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:
On 06.10.2005, at 06.30 a.m., at Krishnapuram Village, in front of Balaji Hotel on Kadapa-Pulivendla main road, the claimant was standing after collecting milk from the Villagers in a can, on his cycle. Then, the respondent No.1‟s bus bearing No. AP 04 T 9756 („offending vehicle‟ for short), which was driven by the respondent No.3 on hire basis, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from Pulivendla side and dashed against the claimant. Claimant fell down by shouting loudly. Driver of the bus without stopping the bus fled away. Claimant sustained lacerated injury over medial aspect of dorsum of right foot and abrasion over back of right foot. He also received fracture of temporal and parietal bones and head injuries. Initially he took treatment at Government Hospital, Kadapa. Later, he was referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where X-rays were taken, which show fracture of temporal and parietal bones. He also took treatment from Private Hospital at Kadapa by spending Rs.40,000/-. Fractured injuries are not healed completely. Even now, the petitioner/claimant is undergoing treatment. He became permanently disabled. He spent 3 Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. Respondent No.1 given the vehicle to respondent No.3 on hire basis and it was insured with respondent No.2 for covering risk of 3rd parties. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
4. (i) Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.
(ii) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company got filed written statement, contending in substance that the petitioner made false statement before police to gain compensation. The petitioner was negligent in standing before the Balaji Hotel and on the yellow margin of the high way road. He was chitchating with the others. He did not take proper precautions against coming vehicles. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the bus, which was hired with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is the deemed owner. Respondent No.3 alone is liable to pay compensation. The claim is excessive. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.
(iii) Respondent No.3 got filed counter contending in substance that A.P.S.R.T.C. is not the owner of the bus, it only hirer of the vehicle from respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:
(1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 06.10.2005 at 06.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. hired bus bearing No. AP 04 T 9756?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(3) To what relief?4
6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents RWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues infavour of the petitioner/claimant and against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and awarded a sum of Rs.98,114/-.
8. Felt aggrieved of the award, the unsuccessful respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present M.A.C.M.A.
9. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which caused the accident, there is no cross appeal filed by the driver.
Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, there is no cross appeal filed by the claimant. So, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company so as to disown its liability. Hence, the simple question that falls for consideration is as to:
"Whether the award, dated 26.02.2009, in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - First Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in fixing the responsibility against the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, by awarding compensation of Rs.98,114/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?"
10. Sri Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent No.1/owner of the bus hired the offending vehicle with respondent No.3/A.P.S.R.T.C. and though the bus was covered with a valid insurance policy, but the owner did not communicate the Insurance Company about the hire with 5 A.P.S.R.T.C., as such A.P.S.R.T.C. is alone liable to pay compensation.
11. No arguments are advanced on behalf of the claimant/respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 did not contest the M.A.C.M.A.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would contend that the respondent No.3 took the offending vehicle i.e., bus bearing No. AP 04 T 9756 for hire purpose, but it was validly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, as such the Tribunal rightly fixed the responsibility on the appellant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. As this Court already pointed out, insofar as the issue with regard to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, there is no cross appeal what so ever is filed by the driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from this the manner in which the Tribunal arrived at compensation is not disputed even in the grounds of appeal. Apart from this, a look at the award of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal duly considered the grievous and simple injuries received by the claimant and considered to grant a sum of Rs.8,000/- for the three (3) simple injuries and one (1) grievous injury. The awarding of amount of Rs.40,113/- is quietly borne out by the Exs.A4 to A6, bunch of medical bills. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering appears to be reasonable. Considering the disability certificate, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-.
14. As evident from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant wanted to disown its liability on the simple ground that the owner of the offending vehicle did not communicate to the Insurance Company about the factum of hiring of the offending vehicle to A.P.S.R.T.C. This Court is of the view that on that count, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability.6
Already the owner of the offending vehicle paid premium under Ex.B1 infavour of the appellant-Insurance Company so as to cover injuries to 3rd parties and the petitioner is no other than the injured, who was a 3rd party. On the simple ground that owner did not communicate to the Insurance Company about the factum of hire, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability.
15. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal rightly fixed the liability on the appellant. The appeal is devoid of the merits and the award, dated 26.02.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2006, on the file of the on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - First Additional District Judge, Kadapa, needs no interference.
16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.25.06.2024.
Vnb 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU M.A.C.M.A.No.979 of 2016 Date:25.06.2024 Vnb