Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Motati Poli Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2023MACMA/1028/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant insurance company appealed against a Tribunal award. The Court found the driver negligent but reduced the disability compensation from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 30,000. Applying the National Insurance principle, the Court held the insurer liable to deposit the reduced award of Rs. 1,30,834 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 1,30,834 with 7% interest payable to claimant within two months; claimant permitted to withdraw on deposit.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Motati… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.NO.1028 of 2012

¶3

JUDGEMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the impugned award Order passed in M.V.O.P.No.872 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- towards compensation to the claimant to be paid by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, this instant appeal is preferred by the 2^nd respondent/ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

¶5

02. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

¶6

03. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Sections 163(A) and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in a tractor accident on 14.05.2005.

¶7

04. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:-

¶8

By the date of incident the injured was aged about 48 years and he was working as Village Secretary/Executive Officer and earning monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. On 14.05.2005, having

¶9

¶10

VGKR.J

¶11

completed his work at MRO Office at Komarole, he was returning back to Giddaluru on a motor cycle driven by his friend Illuri Raja Rao, who was also working as Village Secretary of Pullareddyapally Village. He was the pillion rider on the said motor cycle and Raja Rao was driving the said motor cycle on the left side of the road in slow manner, at about 4-30 PM near Edamakallu Village, the tractor and trailer of 1^st Respondent bearing No.AP 27L 0738 and AP 27L 0739 being driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came on to the main road all of a sudden in the opposite direction and dashed to the leg of the injured. Consequently, himself and rider of the two wheeler fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and claimant sustained fracture of his right forearm, fracture of pelvic bone, iliac bone and other multiple injuries.

¶12

05. The first respondent i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying the claim of the claimant. The 2^nd respondent is the insurer filed written statement denying the claim of the claimant and 2^nd respondent pleaded that entire negligence is on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.

¶13

¶14

VGKR.J

¶15

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶16

06 . Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-

¶17

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor – Trailer bearing No.AP 27 L 738 and AO 27 L 739 by the driver and if so, the petitioner sustained injuries?

¶18

Whether the petitioner would be entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioner would be entitled and against whom?

¶19

To what relief?

¶20

07. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, Pws.1 to 4 are examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Rw.1 was examined and Ex.B1 is marked.

¶21

08. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle tractor cum trailer and directed both the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimant.

¶22

¶23

VGKR.J

¶24

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶25

Aggrieved thereby, this instant appeal preferred by 2^nd respondent/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

¶26

09. Heard Sri V.Raghu., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.Parameswara Rao learned counsel for respondents.

¶27

10. Now the point for determination is:-

¶28

“Whether the Order of the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court, if so, what extent?

¶29

11. POINT:-

¶30

The case of the claimant is that while he was travelling as pillion rider on two wheeler, the driver of the 1^st respondent’s tractor drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the injured, due to that he sustained severe bleeding injuries and he also sustained fracture injuries. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, the injured relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4. From out of which, Pw.1 is the injured his evidence clearly go to show that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle tractor cum trailer. Ex.A1 certified copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A3 certified copy of the private complaint supported the case of the

¶31

¶32

VGKR.J

¶33

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶34

claimant. The material on record reveals that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor cum trailer. The material on record reveals that, the tractor and trailer is involved in the accident and the driver of the tractor drove the same in a speed manner and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler on which the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner claimed that he sustained injuries in the accident caused by the 1^st respondent’s tractor driver. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above finding given by the Tribunal.

¶35

12. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the material on record reveals that the claimant sustained two fracture injures. The same is supported by the evidence of Doctor

¶36

who treated the petitioner. As per the evidence of Pw.2, the claimant sustained two grievous injuries. The material on record reveals that, the petitioner/claimant sustained disability of 10%. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the head

¶37

¶38

VGKR.J

¶39

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶40

of permanent disability. As seen from the material on record, the petitioner sustained only two grievous injuries and the disability sustained by the petitioner is also less in nature ie., at about 10% only. Therefore, I find, it is desirable to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of permanent disability to the claimant instead of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, since the injured sustained two grievous injuries on considering the Ex.A5 medical prescriptions, Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills, Ex.A7 Discharge record. On considering the evidence of Pws.2 to 4, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities and Rs.37,834/- towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs. 23,000/- awarded under the head of loss of salary income during hospitalization period and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/towards transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment of food. I do not find any illegality in awarding quantum of compensation under the above four heads. Therefore, in total the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.1,30,834/- towards total compensation.

¶41

13. The case of the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle tractor and trailer is not having any valid and effective driving license to drive the tractor cum trailer. As seen from the

¶42

¶43

VGKR.J

¶44

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶45

material on record, the xerox copy of driving license is filed and marked as Ex.X2 which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle is having driving license of two wheeler only and not possessed driving license of tractor and trailer. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle tractor and trailer was insured with the appellant/Insurance company and the policy was in force. Since the driver of the offending vehicle tractor and trailer is not having valid and effective driving license, instead of applying pay and recovery principle, the Tribunal directly fastened the liability on the appellant/Insurance company.

¶46

14. The principle laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd vs., Swaran Singh and Others¹ is that even in case of absence, fake or invalid license or disqualification of the driver for driving, the Insurance company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of 3^rd party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, even when the Insurance company could able to establish breach of terms policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶47

1 2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36

¶48

¶49

VGKR.J

¶50

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶51

15. Therefore, for the fore going discussion, the appellant / the Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,30,834/- which was modified by this Court, before the Tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With these above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶52

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant / The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.1,30,834/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization within two months from the date of Judgment. On such deposit the appellant is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle / Respondent No.1 in the claim application by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. On such deposit the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount with interest thereon.

¶53

___________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶54

Date:01.09.2023. KLNS

¶55

¶56

VGKR.J

¶57

MACMA No.1028 of 2012

¶58

132

¶59

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶60

M.A.C.M.A.No.1028 of 2012

¶61

Dt.01.09.2023

¶62

KLNS

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Motati Poli Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Motati Poli Reddy

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

Iffco Tokio General Ins Co. Ltd, Bangalore Vs B Dasari Savithri, Anantapur Dist and Others

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs N.Siva Kumar

Syed Yusuf, Vs Syed Amjad

Majji Appayamma and 2 Others Vs Majji Uma Devi and 2 Others

Royal Sundram Allianace Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gasthi Komala Devi and 5 Others

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Jallumuri Kameswari and 4 Ors.