Dismissed

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Poreddy Sudhamani and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2019MACMA/903/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company against the compensation award in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 101 of 2012. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of the deceased's income and the resulting compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The Royal Sundaram Alliance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

M.A.C.M.A No.903 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Against the award in MVOP.No.101 of 2012, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC), Kadapa at Rajampet, dated 31.12.2012, the present appeal is filed by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, which has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the claimants therein together with interest @6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization along with the owner of the Tipper bearing No.AP04V4569.

¶5

Respondents Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and sons of the deceased Poreddy Raghurami Reddy, whose death took place in the accident, dated 15.07.2011. Their case as narrated in their claim statement is that on 15.07.2011 at about 9.45 p.m, the lorry bearing No.AP04-TT1964 for which the deceased was a cleaner was parked on the left side of the road margin by its driver near Nadimpalli Daba before he went for the answering calls of nature by taking all the required precautions by putting on the lights indicating the parking of the lorry by the road side margin. While so, a tipper bearing No.AP04-V4569 which belonged to the 1^st respondent hit to the stationed lorry from its behind and due to the impact of hitting of the stationed lorry by the tipper, the deceased who was present in the cabin of the lorry fell down from the cabin and the stationed lorry moved and ran over his right thigh and thus he died on the spot. Based on the complaint given by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP04-TT1964, a case was registered against the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP04-V4569 by the police of Vontimitta and charge sheet was filed against the drivers of both the vehicles.

¶6

JUD,J MACMA_903_2013

¶7

¶8

To prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper who dashed the stationed lorry, the claimants examined the driver of the lorry-Pesala Lakshmi Reddy as PW 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7, which were the certified copies of FIR in Cr.No.51/2011 of Vontimitta PS, Postmortem certificate, inquest report, MVI report, charge sheet, wage certificate issued by the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP04-TT1964 and rough sketch of the scene of offence.

¶9

A contention is raised on behalf of the appellant-insurance company by its standing counsel while making his submissions that the court below has failed to see that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, therefore, the annual income of the deceased ought not to have been fixed beyond Rs.4,000/- as per Schedule-II of the M.V.Act.

¶10

Counter was filed by the appellant-insurance company attributing negligence to the driver of the lorry and it was contended that the lorry was stationed without taking necessary precautions by putting on lights indicating parking of the lorry, and as such the driver of the lorry was responsible for occurrence of the accident.

¶11

Considering such an assertion of the 2^nd respondent, and the pleadings of the claimant, the trial court framed the first issue, viz., whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper bearing No.AP04-V-4569 or the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP04TT-1964? and dealt the case under Section 166 of M.V.Act.

¶12

The appellant-insurance company having taken such stand seems to have raised another ground that the negligence should have been apportioned in between the drivers of both the vehicles equally under Section 166 of M.V.Act as both the drivers are charge sheeted, which is quite

¶13

JUD,J MACMA_903_2013

¶14

¶15

contradictory to the earlier ground. Two distinct stands are taken by the appellant-insurance company to dispute its liability to pay compensation.

¶16

By raising a contention that negligence ought to have been apportioned equally under Section 166 of M.V.Act, the appellant cannot dispute or question the assessment of compensation which is said to be made by the court below taking into consideration of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which succinctly establishes that the deceased was working as senior cleaner of respondent No.3 prior to his death.

¶17

The learned trial Judge, looking into the evidence of PW 2, which was corroborated with the contents of Ex.A1 complaint given by himself and the other material on record, held that there was gross negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP04-V4569 and he was responsible for the death of the deceased on whom the stationed lorry ran over, after he fell down from it due to the impact of hitting of it by the tipper driven in a rash and negligent manner.

¶18

The appellant/insurance company though disputed negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper and contended that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, who stationed the lorry on the middle of the road, did not adduce any evidence to contradict the evidence given by PW 2, who testified that the lorry was stationed on road side margin by taking all necessary precautions before he went for answering calls of nature.

¶19

The trial court taking note of the contents of the rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.A7, and the report of the M.V.Inspector and the contents of Ex.A1 and the evidence of PW 2, opined that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, who parked the lorry on the left side of the road margin while going for answering the calls of nature.

¶20

JUD,J MACMA_903_2013

¶21

¶22

Coming to the other contention raised by the appellant was that negligence ought to have been apportioned equally between the drivers of both the vehicles, as the charge sheet was filed by the police against them. The contents of the FIR and the rough sketch themselves would reveal that the lorry was stationed on the left side of the road margin, but not on the middle of the road, as contended by the counsel of the appellant. As the documents produced by the claimants and the evidence of PW 1 would clearly establish that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper, apportionment of negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles would not arise. The finding recorded by the court below on the aspect of the negligence attributed to the driver of the tipper which is amply proved cannot be faulted.

¶23

Coming to the contention raised by the appellant disputing the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is testified by PW 1, the wife of the deceased that the deceased was being paid salary of Rs.6,000/- per month by the owner of the lorry to which he was the senior cleaner. The claimants have produced the wage certificate issued by the 3^rd respondent. Considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which succinctly establishes the fact that the deceased was working as cleaner of the lorry belonging to the 3^rd respondent, and Ex.A6-wage certificate, the court below has reasonably assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. On duly deducting 1/3^rd of such income towards his personal and living expenditure, the court below assessed the annual contribution of income of the deceased to his family at Rs.36,000/-. On multiplying the annual loss of contribution of income of the deceased to his family with multiplier ‘13’, the court below assessed the compensation amount which the claimants are entitled to get towards “loss of dependency” at Rs.4,68,000/-. As the amount claimed by the

¶24

JUD,J MACMA_903_2013

¶25

¶26

claimants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 is Rs.4,50,000/-, the court below has restricted to their claim to Rs.4,50,000/- though they are entitled to get more amount than the amount claimed by them.

¶27

As the compensation amount awarded to the claimants is Rs.4,50,000/- only and is far below the amount they are actually entitled to get, under no circumstances, it can be said that the amount awarded by the court below towards compensation is on higher side. The court below has awarded interest @6% per annum and thus the liability of the appellant has been minimized to the extent possible.

¶28

In the light of the above discussion held by me, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company against the award passed by the court below in MVOP No.101 of 2012 fails and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.

¶30

¶31

J.UMA DEVI,J

¶32

Date: 03.09.2019 Dsr

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Poreddy Sudhamani and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Poreddy Sudhamani and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Bora Lakshmi and 2 Others

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Veligandla Reddaiah and Another

N. Amarnatha Reddy, Chittoor Dist Vs M. Udaya Mohan Reddy, Chittoor Dist and Ano

Rameswarapu Venugopalaswamy, W.G.Dist and 2 Othrs Vs Guttikonda Ashok, Krishna Dist and 2 Othrs

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs v.Ramalingeswara Rao and 3 Others.

Chitrala Sreenivasulu Vs a. Subahan Saheb and Another