Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Pulikanti Subba Reddy and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2020MACMA/619/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in M.A.C.M.A. No.619 of 2010 dismissed the appeal by an Insurance Company against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased person killed in a motor accident. The Company challenged the award on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Court held that the legal he

What did the court decide?

Order dated 4.2.2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is confirmed; appeal dismissed without costs.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.619 of 2010

¶3

JUDGMENT :

¶4

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶5

Aggrieved by the order, dated 4.2.2010 passed in O.P.No.905 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.

¶6

As seen from the record, the claimant filed M.V.O.P. under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Pulikanti Sunga Reddy @ Sunka Reddy (deceased) in a motor accident that took place on 23.11.2007. It is said that, on that day, at about 5 PM, at Industrial Estate near K.P.S. Mills, Guntakal, when the deceased, father of the minor first petitioner, represented by his senior paternal uncle; son of petitioners 2 and 3 and the elder brother of the 4^th petitioner, was on the extreme road margin, crime tractor-cum-trailor bearing registration Nos.AP 02 W 3611 and 3612, belonging to 5^th respondent herein and which was insured with the appellant being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed him; due to which, the deceased sustained grievous and multiple injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntakal and from there, to Railway Hospitals of Guntakal and Lalaguda, Hyderabad and then to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 3.12.2007. The claimants spent more than Rs.60,000/- for medical and other expenses of the deceased. The S.H.O., Guntakal Rural Police Station,

¶7

¶8

registered a case in crime No.72 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶9

In order to prove their case, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were got marked.

¶10

The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.9,46,868/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company preferred this Appeal.

¶11

The only ground urged by the counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In fact, even the finding of the Tribunal was that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was expired on 22.6.2007 and it was renewed on 5.12.2007. Therefore, as on the date of accident i.e., on 23.11.2007, the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold any valid driving licence.

¶12

But, no material has been placed by the appellant to show whether 5^th respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, is aware that driver was not having valid driving licence. Be that as it may, it is not a case where the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the driving licence at all. He was having a licence, but the same was expired in the month of June, 2007. Things would have been different had the driver of the vehicle had no licence at all. Such being the position, this Court is of the opinion that legal heirs of the deceased should not be penalized, as held by the Apex Court on more

¶13

¶14

than one occasion. Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the interest of the claimants should be the paramount consideration. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others¹ the trial Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. This, in my view, cannot be said to be incorrect or improper. Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the incident took place and having regard to the fact that driver of the 5^th respondent vehicle had licence, but which got expired on the date of accident, this, in my view, is a fit case where the order of the trial Court in directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle by treating the Award as decree of the court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

¶15

Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the Tribunal while passing the order.

¶16

The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without costs while confirming the order, dated 4.2.2010 passed in O.P.No.905 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶18

______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

Date : 6.2.2020 skmr

¶20

1 2004 ACJ 1

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Pulikanti Subba Reddy and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Pulikanti Subba Reddy and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Syed Basha Vs the State of A.P.

Kanala Krishna Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Smt. Labala Kapana, Vs R.N. Pradeep, and 3 Others

Pydipati Gangamma Vs the State of a .P. and 3 Others

Penumatcha Sai Babu Raju, Vs Manda Raja Rao and Another

Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kandhi Sanyasi and Anr.