Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Indravath Davulamma and 4 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2019MACMA/634/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant Insurance Company filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the Tribunal's assessment of compensation liable as the evidence regarding rash and negligent driving was clear, and the employer had no capacity to restrain such negligence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of compensation stands affirmed; no order as to costs.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No. 634 of 2009

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Respondent No. 2/Appellant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of death of one Badre Naik [the ‘deceased’ ] in a road accident, which occurred on 11.02.2001.

¶5

The averments made in the Claim Petition disclose that, on 11.02.2001 at about 7.00 AM, the deceased along with one Govinda Nail reached Mamillapalli from Kurlapalli in a bullock cart for changing the tyres. At that time, a lorry bearing No. KL-11E 9339 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the bullock cart, as a result of which the deceased was thrown out from the cart. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Anantapur, where, the Doctors declared him dead. A case in Cr. No. 4 of 2001 came to be registered in Kanaganapalli Police Station and the matter was investigated. Thereafter, the present claim petition is filed showing the owner and the insurer of the said vehicles as Respondents.

¶6

A counter came to be filed by 2^nd Respondent stating that the driver of the lorry had no valid driving license on the date of accident and there was no valid permit. It is further pleaded that the vehicle has no fitness certificate as well. The deceased was aged 70 years on the date of accident as such he was very old and unable to do any work. It was also pleaded that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. On the other hand, it is said

¶7

¶8

that, the cart suddenly came across the lorry as a result of which, the accident took place.

¶9

The 1^st Respondent in M.V.O.P. i.e., owner of the vehicle remained ex parte.

¶10

In support of its case, the Claimants examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex. A1 to A3, while, 2^nd Respondent got marked Ex.B1 –copy of the insurance police.

¶11

Having regard to the facts in issue, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, while rejecting the rest of the claim. The Tribunal also held that Respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal.

¶12

As seen from the record, the incident in question took place when the deceased reached Mamillapalli from Kurlapalli in a bullock cart for changing the tyres. At that time, the driver of a lorry bearing No. KL-11E 9339 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bullock cart, as a result of which the deceased who sustained injuries died. A case in Cr. No. 4 of 2001 was also registered. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the FIR. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the charge-sheet. A reading of these two documents would clearly show that the incident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the crime vehicle. Though, the claim of the Respondent is that the incident occurred when the deceased tried to cross the road and there was no rashness

¶13

¶14

and negligence on the part of the driver but no evidence to the effect was adduced. Under those circumstances, the Trial Court came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the crime vehicle.

¶15

The plea now taken is that the driver of the vehicle has no driving license. But, grounds of Appeal filed do not anywhere indicate the same. Though such a plea was taken in the counter, but, the same was never substantiated. Therefore, the argument that there is no liability on Respondent No. 2 is without basis. More so, in the absence of any suggestion to the witnesses or with regard to the said aspect any authority being examined to prove the same. Mere averment that the driver has no license may not be sufficient.

¶16

Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of accident. Taking into consideration the claim for compensation under no fault liability and the earnings through usage of bullock cart, the Trial Court Awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment, which warrants no interference. It cannot be said a person who is about 60 years has no capacity to earn money, more so, when the evidence on record would show that the deceased was running a bullock cart. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Tribunal.

¶17

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. stands dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶18

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶20

stand closed.

¶21

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶22

Date: 17.12.2002 SM.

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶25

M.A.C.M.A. No. 634 of 2009

¶26

Date: 17.12.2002

¶27

SM.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Indravath Davulamma and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Indravath Davulamma and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Adilaxmi Vs State of a.P.,Secretary,Legislative Affairs

Kayala Srinivasa Rao Vs P.O. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court

Mallisetty Prasada Rao Vs B Venkateswara Rao

R.Gopalaraju Vs the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court

Tabitha Ideal High School, Rep. by its Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Srikakulam. Vs Nakka Venkata Rao and Another