Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ankala Subba Ramaiah vs Dasari Satyanarayana on 25 September, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.234 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is claim petitioner and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No.734 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur. Questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.
3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.12.2008.
4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows:
2
VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 The petitioner is working as General Officer in Andhra Bank, Ponnur. On 22.12.2008 as there was bund by MRPS people, the petitioner was going to Ponnur on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AEE 0235 and when he reached near Mamillapalli Cross Road at 8.00 a.m., a tractor bearing registration No.AP 07AP 8243 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came in opposite direction and hit the motor cycle of the petitioner on his right side, as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries including fracture injuries. The S.H.O., Ponnur, registered a case in crime No.157 of 2008 against the driver of the tractor for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC.
The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the tractor, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the material averments of the claim petition. It is pleaded that the 3 VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 driver of the tractor had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor as well as there is no valid R.C. and fitness certificate to the tractor, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:
1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 07AP 8243 of 1st respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.4 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.9 and Exs.X.5 and X.6 were marked. 4
VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor and accordingly, allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner with costs and interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the 1st respondent only and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent/Insurance company. Aggrieved against the exoneration of the Insurance company from the liability of payment of the compensation amount, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present appeal.
9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
10. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner confined his arguments only to the aspect of exoneration of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company from payment of compensation to the petitioner.
5
VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014
11. Therefore, the only legal ground that has to be considered in this appeal is, whether the exoneration of the Insurance company from payment of compensation to the petitioner is legally sustainable or not?.
12. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal exonerated the 2nd respondent/Insurance company from its liability of payment of compensation to the petitioner on the ground that the driver of the offending tractor was not holding valid driving licence by the date of accident and his driving licence to drive the tractor was expired on 01.09.1996.
13. It is contended by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the driver of the offending tractor was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and his licence was also expired on 01.09.1996. In support of his contention, he relied on the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. R.W.1 in his evidence deposed that the driver of the offending tractor was not holding valid driving licence and notices were issued to the owner and the driver of the tractor to 6 VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 produce driving licence particulars. The office copies of the notices and acknowledgments are marked as Exs.B.1 to B.6. R.W.2 is the Senior Assistant from R.T.A. Office, Vijayawada. According to him, the driver of the tractor possessed LMV transport driving licence and he obtained endorsement for tractor and trailer on 30.01.1988 and later, the same was renewed from time to time and lastly, it was renewed up to 01.09.1996 and thereafter, it was not renewed. The material on record reveals that neither the driver nor the owner of the offending tractor was examined to prove that the driver of the offending tractor was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Further, a perusal of Ex.A.2-charge sheet discloses that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending tractor for the offence under Section 181 of the M.V.Act also for not possessing valid driving licence. From the above evidence, it is proved that the driver of the offending tractor did not possess valid driving licence by the date of accident and his licence was expired on 01.09.1996 and thereby, the 1st respondent committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Admittedly, the offending 7 VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 tractor of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1 policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of accident.
14. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others 1 is that "even in case of absence, fake or invalid licence or disqualification of the driver for driving, the Insurance company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of 3rd party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of offending vehicle, even when the Insurance company could able to establish breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle".
15. In Francisca Luiza Rocha Vs. K. Valarmathi2, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held as under:
"6. In the present case the owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings to prove and establish that in 1 2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36 2 2018 ACJ 1430 8 VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 spite of best efforts the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence was not known to him. What alone stood proved (by the Insurer) was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. As the driver had a licence but validity of the same had expired, we are of the view that the conclusion of the High Court that the said fact, by itself, constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance is not correct.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, we will have to hold that the insurance company (M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein would be liable to satisfy the award and thereafter seek recovery, if so advised, from the owner of the vehicle (Mrs. K. Valarmathi) i.e. Respondent No. 1. Consequently, with the aforesaid modification we dispose of the appeal in the above terms."
16. For the foregoing discussion and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner in the first instance and later recover the same from the 1st 9 VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 respondent/owner of the offending tractor, by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit.
17. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 8% p.a. is concerned, since the accident in question took place in the year 2008, this Court feels that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant rate of interest, therefore, the same has to be scaled down from 8% p.a. to 7% p.a.
18. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the Tribunal in the first instance within two months from the date of this judgment and later recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner of the offending tractor by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. The order passed by the Tribunal with regard to the liability and the rate of interest is modified to the extent indicated above. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects remains undisturbed.
10
VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014
19. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.
_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J th 25 September, 2023 cbs 11 VGKR,J MACMA No.234 of 2014 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.234 of 2014 25th September, 2023 cbs