Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

National Ins Co Ltd., Khammam vs Vattikonda Rajarsha 5 Others on 28 June, 2022

Author: G. Sri Devi

Bench: G. Sri Devi

              THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.428 of 2015
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 21.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.777 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge), Khammam (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased V.Siva Rama Krishna, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 10.04.2004 the claimant along with his father, mother and sister were returning from Vatsavai Village to Khammam on Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 09 AB 551, driven by his father and when they reached after crossing bus stand at Tirlapuram, one hired R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 16 X 6672 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor 2 GSD, J Macma_428_2015 cycle, due to which, the father, mother and sister of the claimant died instantaneously. It is stated that the claimant has lost all his family members and he lost his support and source of income and love and affection, therefore, he filed aforesaid O.P. against respondents. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner, respondent No.3 is the insurer and respondent No.4 is the hirer of the R.T.C. bus and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased.

4. Considering the claim and the counters filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.19,34,320/- with 7.5% interest per annum, payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3

GSD, J Macma_428_2015

6. The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is in two fold, firstly; since the bus was hired to 4th respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., the 4th respondent alone is liable to pay compensation and secondly; the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

7. In U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendri Devi and others1 relying on its judgment in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others2 the Apex Court held that the hire agreement is only between the Corporation and the bus owner and does not bind anybody, who is not privy to the agreement, least of all, the victim, who is third party. It is further held that the amount awarded by the Tribunal will now be payable only by the Insurance Company together with interest.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, I am of the considered view that 1 Civil Appeal No.2526 of 2020, dt. 8.6.2020 SC 2 (2011) 8 SCC 142 4 GSD, J Macma_428_2015 the Tribunal has rightly held that the respondents 2 and 3, the owner and insurer of the bus are jointly and severally to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant and there is no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the said finding.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and the material brought on record by the claimant in support thereof, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation of Rs.19,34,320/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and that no case is made out for its reduction as it is found to be just and reasonable.

10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.06.2022 gkv 5 GSD, J Macma_428_2015