Allowed

Vantipudi Lakshmaiah v. v. Rajendra Prasad and Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Oct 2019MACMA/1162/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, an injured motor driver attracted criminal liability, appealed the Tribunal's dismissal of his Motor Vehicles Act claim. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the claim maintainable under Sections 166/167 and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the Tribunal set aside; matter remanded for fresh enquiry and reasoned award within six months.

Vantipudi Lakshmaiah Vs v. Rajendra Prasad and… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY .THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER i

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN A

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1162 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lakshmaiah. S/o.Gopaiah, Hindu, Aged 38 years. Driver R/o Torraguntapalem, Jaggaiahpet (Claimant)

¶9

...Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

Ramabrahmam, Hindu, Aged 35 years. Owner of

¶12

AHba^a^trSJt'’-'""ited, rep. by its Divisional Manager Alibaig Street, Governorpet. Vijayawada-2. (Respondent No.2)

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment and Decree on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Vijayawada. In M.V.O.P.No.819 of 2002 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T V Ravi Kumar, Advocate the Appellant and Smt. s N Padmini, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶15

The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶16

That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed

¶17

That the Judgment and Decree dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Tribunal in

¶18

M.V.O.P.No.819 of 2W2 is hereby set aside

¶19

That the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for enquiry afresh and to

¶20

post reasoned award

¶21

4. That the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of Six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment

¶22

That there be no order as to costs in this MAGMA SD/- T MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶23

To.

¶24

Two CD Copies
sree

¶25

¶26

¶27

HIGH COURT
DATED:17/10/2019
DECREE
IVIACIVIA.No.1162 of 2006
ALLOWING THE MAGMA
X 26SEP2<® 1

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶29

¶30

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN liS

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶33

motor ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCFII ANEOUS APPEAL WO: 1162 OF 20nA

¶34

dated 2te'006 h M V S P No%°5 “<^2^2

¶35

Between:

¶36

T^^S'.aX%Xai:«Sar^ R/o.

¶37

AND

¶38

...Appellant

¶39

(Respondent No 1) ’ ° Seetharampuram. Jaggaiahpet.

¶40

...Respondents

¶41

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. RAVI KUMAR TOLETY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. S N PADMINI

¶43

The Court made the following Order:

¶44

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶45

M.A.C.M.A. No. 1162 OF 2006

¶46

JUDGMENT:

¶47

The appellant is the injured driver. He filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act’) questioning the award and decree dated 20.02.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.819 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District 86 Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 167 of M.V. Act as not maintainable under the provisions of M.V. Act.

¶48

The appellant filed the claim petition stating that on 29.04.2002 at 5.00 a.m. while he was driving a lorry bearing N0.API6 TT 3378 from Addanki to Vijayawada and when it crossed Nallavagu bridge, one APSRTC Bus bearing No. APIOZ 2178‘ driven by the l®t respondent, which was going towards Addanki side, came in opposite direction and both the vehicles collided with each other, as a result of which both the drivers and the inmates of the bus sustained grievous injuries and that all the injured including the appellant were shifted to Government Hospital, Addanki for treatment and later he was shifted to

¶49

¶50

¶51

Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment and again he shifted to Soumya Hospital, Tadepalli for better treatment.

¶52

The Station House Officer, Addanki Police Station has registered a Crime No.43 of 2002 on 30.04.2002 in respect of the accident under Sections 338 and 337 of IPC and after death of the driver of the RTC bus, the section of law was altered to Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC on 02.05.2002.

¶53

The right leg of the appellant was operated by doctors at Soumya hospital and bone graft was done, and he was discharged on 30.05.2002. Again, after one month, he was admitted 4n Mother Teresa Hospital, Kodad on 06.07.2002, where the doctor replaced the pin that was already fixed and plaster of paris was applied to his right leg and he was on bed rest. He was aged 38 years, hale and healthy, working under pt respondent as lorry driver and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as salary. The-accident was occurred during the course of his employment as driver, He chooses to file the claim petition under Section 167 of the M.V. Act. He claimed compensation against the insured and the insurer of the lorry as both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶54

¶55

The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶56

The 2nd respondent resisted the claim and contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of APSRTC as a party to the proceedings. It is also contended that the crime has been registered against the appellant on the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself. The appellant cannot claim compensation for the wrong done by him and no liability can be fastened on it. The appellant has to prove the injuries, the treatment undergone, age, income and subsisting of the driving licence as on the date of accident. The claim of Rs.3 lakhs with interest and costs is excessive and exorbitant.

¶57

The respondent was permitted to take the defences available as per the order of the Tribunal dated 21.04.2005 passed in I.A.No.472 of 2005.

¶58

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶59

Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident on 30-4-02 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16TT 3378?

¶60

¶61

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the -compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom?

¶62

To what relieP

¶63

During the course of trial, the appellant himself was examined as PWl and also examined PWs 2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.l to A. 14 documents in his favour. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent examined one witness as RWl and exhibited Exs.B.l to B.3 documents.

¶64

However, the 2"^ respondent by way of additional counter, which was allowed on 11.05.2005 in I.A.No.471 of 2005, specifically pleaded that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the appellant himself and the petitioner for t compensation cannot lie under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, and the appellant -can however institute an application if so advised under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶65

The Tribunal, before deciding the Issue No.l, no separate issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the petition under Sections 166 and 167 of the M.V. Act.

¶66

¶67

The Tribunal, having considered the evidence on record, submissions of the learned counsel and various case-laws, has come to the conclusion that the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is not maintainable as the accident itself was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by the appellant, and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

¶68

The point that arises for consideration of this Court is Whether the claim petition filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 167 of M.V. Act for payment of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor vehicle accident is maintainable before the Tribunal?

¶69

Sri T.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the provision of Section 167 of M.V.Act give option to the claimant to choose the forum to approach for grant of compensation either under the provisions of M.V.Act or under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, but not under both. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in holding that there is no convincing evidence on the side of the appellant that the accident is not occurred due to his negligence and contrary to the evidence on record. The

¶70

¶71

“6

¶72

appellant suffered 25% disability due to. the injuries sustained in the accident and bedridden for three months. The appellant used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as a driver as on the date of accident and now he is unfit to attend the driver duties and claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The M.V. Act is a socially beneficial legislation and must be given widest interpretation and liberal construction. The Tribunal, instead of denying the claim petition, could have granted compensation under Section r63-A of theLUC M.V.ivi.v. ActAcr sincesince itit isis wellwell settledsettled thatthat iin the claim petition under Section 163-A, the question of negligence need not be pleaded and proved by the claimant.

¶73

Per contra. Smt. S.N.Padmini, learned counsel for the insurance company, would contend that the claim under Sections 166 and 167 of the M.V. Act is not maintainable as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by the appellant himself. For grant of compensation -under the provisions of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the appellant has to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the insurance company could not be fastened with the liability of payment of compensation. She made her submission sustaining the award of

¶74

/ /

¶75

¶76

the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable under the provisions of M.V. Act. The appeal is bereft of any ground for interference of this Court and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶77

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellant being the driver of the offending lorry was responsible for the accident in which he too sustained injuries and as such he could not get any compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act and thereby he ought to have invoked the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

¶78

'5 i

¶79

A bare reading of the relevant provisions of M.V. Act and the Rules made thereunder with regard to the filing of claim petitions for payment of compensation where the death or permanent disability of any person resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner/insured and the insurer of the motor vehicle shall be jointly liable to pay compensation. The claim could be made under Section 140 of M.V. Act on the principle of no fault liability and application for compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act is maintainable before the Tribunal

¶80

¶81

¶82

for adjudication upon claims for ■compensation arising out of the use of motor vehicles, causing death or bodily injury to the persons or damages to the property of third party so arising or both includes claim for compensation under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. The provision of Section 167 gives option to choose an authority either under the provisions of M.V. Act or under the provisions of workmen’s Compensation Act, but not both.

¶83

It is profitable to extract the provision of Section 167 of the M.V. Act as follows:

¶84

“167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.”

¶85

¶86

In the case on hand, the occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. Likewise, the registration of case in Crime No.43 of 2002 and filing of charge sheet are also not in dispute. But, the appellant has chosen to file this application for compensation under Sections 166 and 167 of M.V. Act, as per the decision of

¶87

¶88

this Court in Shaik Mahaboob Bi and others Vs. K.Nagaraja Rao and others [decided in C.M.A.No.250 of 2006 on 13.11.2017 - reported in MANU/AP/0965/2017], wherein this Court held that exercising of an option by an applicant either under M.V.Act and under W.C. Act is critical, but the exercise of an option precludes the second application.

¶89

In view of the above provision of law, the claim petition filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 167 of M.V. Act is maintainable. The Tribunal, instead of answering all the issues framed in the case, only decided maintainability of the claim petition. It is settled proposition of law that the Tribunal or Court has to deal with all the issues framed in the case and to decide all the issues, as held by the HonTale Apex Court in the case of Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram and others [2005(6) SCC 614].

¶90

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.819 of 2002 and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for enquiry afresh and to pass reasoned award. As the claim petition is of the year 2002, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within

¶91

¶92

a period of six {6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. 20. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

¶93

stand closed.

¶94

SD/-T MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^^SECTI 6^FFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada. (With Records) 2. One CC to Sri T.V. Ravi Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. S N Padmini, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi ’ 5. Two CD Copies sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/10/2019

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1162 of 2006

¶100

ALLOWING THE MAGMA

¶101