Dismissed

M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangarpu Venkateswaramma

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Sept 2022MACMA/2895/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court rejected claims that the driver lacked a license or that premium was unpaid for the deceased coolies, confirming the original award of Rs. 3,50,000.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 3,50,000 passed by the Tribunal in the motor accident claim is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed without costs.

M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY , THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

/oj, '

PRESENT

fey

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAM,

¶7

MAGMA No. 2895 OF 2011

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the order and Decree dated 09.08.2011 passed in OP No. 208 of 2010 on the file, of the III Additional District Judge cum Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kurnool at Nandyal.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. United India Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o Kurnool.

¶11

...Appellant

¶12

AND

¶13

Sangarpu Venkateswaramma, W/o.late Veera Narayana, Hindu Coolie R/o.Revanoor Village, Koilakunta Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶14

Sangarpu Naresh, S/o.late Veera Narayana, Hindu Student R/o.Revanoor Village, Koilakunta Mandal, Kurnool District..

¶15

Sangarpu Pullamma, W/o.late Nadipi Veeraiah, hindu Coolie R/o.Revanoor Village, Koilakunta Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶16

V.Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy Owner of Tractor & Trailer Bearing No.AP 21 R 0601 & 0602 R/o Seetharmpuram Village, Mahanandi Madnal, KunroolDistrict.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011 (MACIVIAiVIP. NO: 4976 OF 2011)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings of the decree and judgement dated 09.08.2011 in MVOP No.208/2010 on the file of the MACT cum III Additional District Judge at Kurnool at Nandyal.

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NARESH BYRAPANENI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI G SRAVAN KUMAR

¶22

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

¶24

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

¶26

M.A.C.M.A.No.2895 of 2011

¶27

JUDGMENT;

¶28

Aggrieved by the Award dt.09.08.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.208 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents. Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the

¶29

instant appeal.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

¶31

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

¶32

The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The Petitioners 1 to 3/Claimants who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased S.Veeranarayana filed M.V.O.P.208/2010 on the plea that on 03.01.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., when the deceased along with the other coolies were engaged for loading and unloading of paddy bags in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 21 R 0601 and 0602 and when reached the petrol bunk at Gosapadu Village, the driver of the tractor and trailer had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner due to which the tractor turned turtle as a result the deceased who sat in the trailer, fell on the ground underneath

¶33

¶34

the paddy bags and died on the spot. The petitioners further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tractor and trailer and due to the. sudden demise of the deceased, they lost their fander. and became destitutes. On these pleas, the petitioners claimed compensation of ^9.3,50,000/- under different heads against the respondents 1 .and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle re., tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 21 R 0601’ and 0602 respectively.

¶35

(b) The 18t respondent did not contest the matter. The 2"^ respondent/Insurance Company, filed counter, denied all the material averments made in the petition and urged to put the claimants in strict proof of the same. It is further pleaded that the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy by carrying the passengers unauthorizedly. It is further pleaded that no premium was paid by the insured covering the risk of the deceased who boarded the vehicle and died on the spot. The driver who drove the offending vehicle on the date of accident had no valid driving licence. The insured knowing fully well of the terms and conditions of the policy, violated the sawp Therefore, the 2«d respondent cannot indemnify the insured and IS not liable to pay the compensation. The age, avocation and

h:'-

I. • z ' c

income of the deceased were denied and it is contended that the claim was excessive and thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

c) During trial, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A. 7 were marked on behalf of the petitioners/claimants. R.W.l was examined and Exs.B. 1 to B.4 were marked on behalf of the

¶41

respondent-insurance Company.

¶42

d) A perusal of the award would show that, as far as Issue No.l is concerned, believing the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 and Exs.A. 1 to A.7, the Tribunal held that the driver of the tractor and trailer was responsible for the accident. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded « Rs.3,50,000/- with proportionate costs and simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount into the Court, against the l®t and 2”^ respondents, as below:

¶43

¶44

Loss of dependency

¶45

Rs.3,36,000/Rs. 10,000/Rs. 4,000/-

¶46

Consortium of the l»t petitioner

Funeral Expenses

Total:

Rs.3,50,000/-

Hence, the appeal by the United India Insurance Company

¶51

Limited.

¶52

¶53

. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent did not contest the matter and no representation on his behalf. Hence, treated the arguments of the 4* respondent as heard.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company directed his arguments mainly attacking that the driver of the tractor and trailer who drove the same on the date of accident, had not possessed a valid driving licence and the insured knowing fully well the terms and conditions of the policy, violated the same arid entrusted iJie vehicle to the driver, who

¶55

had no'valid licerice and further' pleaded that no premium was paid by the insured for covering the risk of the coolies i.e the deceased in this case, who boarded the vehicle and died and as

¶56

per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer would not indemnify the owner of the vehicle. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- without appreciating the evidence and the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the award passed by the

¶57

Tribunal, dt.09.08.20H.

f ; "l

Per contra, while supporting the award, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3/claimants would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and well-reasoned and the Tribunal found that that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and both the respondents are responsible to pay the compensation amount. It is further argued that the Tribunal gave finding that the 2^^ respondent i.e., the appellant herein did not adduce any convincing evidence. Though R.W.l was examined, he did not file any documentary evidence to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid licence at the time of accident. He further argued that the tractor and trailer was meant for loading and unloading of paddy bags and other goods, if any, through the coolies and the payment towards premium of the coolies was included in the policy, and as such, separate premium need not be paid. Therefore, the deceased was covered under the policy and the insured had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, Respondents 1 to 3/Claimants are entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company lacks of merits and is liable to be dismissed..

¶63

•.■i;

¶64

¶65

In the light of the .above rival arguments, now, the point for * 0

¶66

determination in this appeal is:

¶67

“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference?”

¶68

• 8. POINT: The accident, involvement of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 21 R 0601 and 0602 and the death of ’ the deceased, . are not in dispute as Stated' supra. The .appellant/Insurance Company riiainly challenged that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,, is-is riotriot inin

¶69

accordance with law and' on two grounds. The first grourid is

¶70

; ’that the driver of .the tractor and trailer had no valid driving

¶71

licence on the date of the accident and the deceased was not. ’Covered’Under the policy since the insured had riot paid the premium amount. In this context, whether the Tribunal'had given .any valid reason to substantiate the clairri of the petitioners has. to be looked into. Now, we have to see the evidence and material available on record. 9. In the present case of nature, to decide on the ground • that the driver of the tractor arid trailer had no valid, licence on

¶72

the date of accident, the appellant had to place any evidence to substantiate their contention. The evidence of R.W. 1 has played vital role to determine the above said fact. R.W.l who is ^e

¶73

¶74

¶75

Branch manager of the appellant/Insurance Company had deposed that he had no personal knowledge about this case. On the date of accident, the policy was in force and the said policy is a package policy. They collected premium separately for tractor and trailer. In the light of the evidence of R.W.l, the offending vehicle is covered with insurance as on the date of accident and no material was placed by the appellant/Insurance Company to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed valid driving licence and nothing was elicited either from P.W. 1 or P.W.2 to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed veilid driving licence and none were examined from the Transport Department by the appellant/Insurance Company to prove the same. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant’s counsel is not trustworthy and convincing. On the other hand, the Tribunal found with a reasoned order that the 2’^'1 respondent did not adduce any convincing evidence through

¶76

R.W.l. Though R.W.l was examined, he did not file any documentary evidence to show that the driver had no ’ valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 10. Even assuming that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid licence to drive the same, in the recent decision in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another Vs.

¶77

¶78

¶79

Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another^ Hon’ble Apex Court held as

¶80

follows:

¶81

........... The entire compensation shall be

¶82

paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 msurance company, arui we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing. valid driving licence on the date of the accident.

¶83

18. Accordingly; this civil appeal is allowed

¶84

partly with directions as indicated above. No order

¶85

: . . as to costs.” ' ‘ .

¶86

-11. -In view of the above decision, the Insurance Company

¶87

, . cannot, escape from its liability. Therefore, the contention of the

¶88

appellant on the above aspect, is not justifiable.-

¶89

The another plea taken by the appellant/Insurance company is that the deceased was not covered under the policy

¶90

as the deceased was the passenger. Except the plea taken by them, • no material evidence was placed . by the appellant/insurance company to substantiate-their claim. On the other hand, R.W. 1 had categorically stated that, as on the' . date of accident, the policy, was in force and the said policy is a package policy and they had collected premium separately for tractor and trailer. As the payment towards premium of the

¶91

coolies was included in the premium of the policy, separate

¶92

' (2022). 1 see 317.

¶93

... * <s 5 ' . . ■. =

■9

5 J

I }

/ J I. i.. K

premium need not be paid. P.W.2 categorically stated that the persons engaged as coolies for loading and unloading, can travel in the trailer along with the goods and they are covered under the policy. In this case, the deceased was engaged as a coolie for loading and unloading the paddy bags. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger, is found to be untrue and false.

¶100

The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. V.Chinnamma & Others^. The said decision is not applicable to s the facts of the present case on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the said tractor and trailer. Along with other coolies the paddy bags were loaded in the trailer and while returning, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The trailer turned turtle and the deceased had fallen down underneath the paddy bags and died on the spot. Therefore, the decision relied on by the appellant s counsel is different footing from the present case of nature. The above said decision is not helpful to the case of

¶101

the appellant.

¶102

" Appeal (Civil) No.5478 of 2004

¶103

¶104

Under these circumstances, this Court finds no justification in the arguments of the appellant/Insurance Company and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, warranting no interference. 15. In the result, I find no merits in the appeal, and ^e same is accordingly dismissed by confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.208 of 2010, dt.09.08.2011. No costs in the appeal.

¶105

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed.

¶106

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// --------- .SECTION OFFICER

¶107

To,
KvThe Ili’AMiorial District Judge cum Chairman, Motor Accident Claims .
\Tribunal’Kump,ol at Nahdyal.
2. The’\SeGtiog,QMcej,>V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
3. One CC to “Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Advocate [OPUC]
■ .4. One CC to Sri G. Sravan Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)
5. Two CD copies.
Trt
VNA

• jUxK)

*6»i’

I i ii

i i ■i ■! ry

HIGH COURT

DATED:27/09/2022

JUDGMENT+DECREE

IVIACMA.No.2895 of 2011

¶116

2 3 AUG 1023
■»>
Current SectlM

¶117

Dismissing the MAGMA

¶118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶119

¶120

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMe ""' ' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶121

PRESENT

¶122

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA

¶123

MACMA No. 2895 OF 2011

¶124

Between:

¶125

M/s. United India Insurance Co Ltd. rep by its Divisional Manager O/o kurnool

¶126

AND

¶127

S^ngarpu Venkateswaramma. W/o.late Veera Narayana, Hindu Coolie R/o.Revanoor Village, Koilakunta Mandal, Kurnool District

¶128

2- Naresh. S/o.late Veera Narayana, Hindu Student R/o.Revanoor Village, Koilakunta Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶129

Sangarpu Pullamma. W/o.late Nadipi Veeraiah. hindu Coolie R/o.Revanoor Village, Koilakunta Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶130

n Reddy.Owner of Tractor & Trailer Bearing R/o Seetharmpuram Village, Mahanandi Madnal,

¶131

Kurnool District...

¶132

...Respondents

¶133

Appeal filed .Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the order and Decree dafed 0^08^20Ijl^p^sed In OP No. 208 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District Judge cum Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kurnool at Nandyal.

¶134

hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and^Di^ree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon heafinath^rgumfehts of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Advocate for the appellant and SrhQ. Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶135

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶136