Allowed

Bachanaboina Venkateswarlu v. Y.V. Ramana Reddy and 2 Ots

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2023MACMA/1056/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of. The High Court upheld the Tribunal award of Rs.5,00,000 but directed the insurance company to pay the same and recover it from the owner via execution, citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company was directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. within two months and recover it from the 2nd respondent/owner by filing an execution petition witho

Bachanaboina Venkateswarlu Vs Y.V. Ramana Reddy… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA COURT OF ANDHRA OF ANDHRA ANDHRA^{PRADESH AT AMARAV AT AMARAV AMARAV}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA COURT OF ANDHRA OF ANDHRA ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV AT AMARAV AMARAV j~
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER ~~i, Y •a
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1056 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bachanaboina Venkateswarlu, S/o. Rangaiah, D.No. 3-332, 60 Feet Road, Satyanarayapuram, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

¶8

.Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Sri Y.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Ramasubba Reddy, R/o. Bank Colony, Podili Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶11

Sri Y.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Ramasubba Reddy, R/o. Bank Colony, Podili Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶12

M/s. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, Dharavarithota, Ongole.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT. aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 13.06.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.255/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Before the I Additional District Judge, Ongole). This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Madhava Rao for the Appellant and of Sri Jonna Ramani for Respondent.

¶15

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶16

That the appeal be and hereby is disposed.

¶17

That the 3rd respondentllnsurance Company is directed to pay the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, as awarded by the Tribunal, to theclaimants and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending van by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit.

¶18

That the 3rd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal, and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending van.

¶19

That on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest.

¶20

That there shall no order as to costs in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶21

Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARIL ASSISTANT ~REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Before the I Additional District Judge, Ongole).

¶26

Three CD Copies.

v- Y

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14/09/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1056 of 2012

¶34

• wP^iQ</sup>

¶35

v-f,r

¶36

DISPOSING OF THE M.A.C.M.A.

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT^AMARAVATI

¶38

THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶41

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1056 OF²⁰¹²

¶42

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 13.06.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.255/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Before the I Additional District Judge, Ongole).

¶43

Between:

¶44

Bachanaboina Venkateswarlu, S/o. Rangaiah, D.No. 3-332, 60 Feet Road, Satyanarayapuram, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

¶45

..Appellant/Petitioners

¶46

AND

¶47

Sri Y.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Ramasubba Reddy, R/o. Bank Colony, Podili Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶48

Sri Y.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Ramasubba Reddy, R/o. Bank Colony, Podili Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶49

M/s. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, Dharavarithota, Ongole.

¶50

...Respondents/Respondents

¶51

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP. NO: 2320 OF 20121

¶52

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 to enhance the compensation from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 11,95,000/- as per the calculation arrived by the Tribunal in MVOP.No. 255 of 2012 on the file of MACT cum I Additional District Judge, Ongole.

¶53

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

¶54

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI JONNA RAMANI

¶55

The Court made the following:

¶56

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶57

M.A.C.M.A.No.1056 of 2012

¶58

JUDGMENT: _

¶59

The appellant herein who is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum--I Additional District Judge, Ongole, filed the instant appeal aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶60

Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶61

The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989, against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor cycle accident that occurred on 12.02.2010.

¶62

Brief averments in the petition filed by the claimant are as follows:

¶63

On 12.02.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. when the claimant started from Mangapuram of Podili Mandal to Ongole on his motor cycle

¶64

bearing registration No.AP-9-P-9080 and when he reached to

¶65

¶66

VGKR,J MACMA No.1056 01 2012

¶67

Takaripalem, at about 10.30 p.m., a Maruthi Omini 800 Van (offending van), being driven by its driver/owner in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, the claimant fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and right shoulder. In connection with the above incident, a case in Crime No.17 of 2010 was registered against the 1St respondent/driver/ owner of the offending van for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C.

¶68

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement with a plea that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation from the insurer, since there is violation in the policy that the driver of the offending van did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

¶69

Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial by the Tribunal:

¶70

(1) Whether the accident occurred on 12.02.20 10 at about 10.30 p.m. near Takaripalem village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, due to the rash and heglignet driving of

¶71

¶72

VGKR,I MACMA No.1056 of 2012

¶73

the Maruti Van, bearing No. AP 09 J 9608 Maruti 800 Van by its driver?

¶74

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? And if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶75

(3) To what relief?

¶76

During the course of the enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimant, P. W s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A. l to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

¶77

At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from payment of the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by respondent Nos. l and 2 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 26.06.2010 i.e., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/claimant preferred the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal and for enhancement of the compensation.

¶78

Heard learned counsels on both sides and perused the material on record.

¶79

¶80

VGKR,J MACMA No.105b of 2012

¶81

Now the point for determination is:

¶82

"Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent?"

¶83

POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van, the claimant relied on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1-attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A.2-attested copy of the Charge Sheet, which clearly show that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van i.e., the 1St respondent. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶84

Coming to the compensation, in order to prove the claim of the claimant, the claimant relied on the evidence of P.W.2. As per the evidence of the claimant, on 13.02.2010, while he was proceeding on his motor cycle, the driver of the offending van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle, as a result, he fell down from the motor cycle and sustained multiple fractures and

¶85

¶86

VGKR,J MACMA No.1056 of 2012

¶87

he was also admitted in NIMS on the same day for crush injury to his right foot and he underwent surgery for the said crush injury. The claimant also relied on Ex.A.6-O.P. car and medical record and Ex.A.7bunch of medical bills (61 in number). The claimant also relied on Ex.A.8-disability certificate issued by RIMS, Ongole, which goes to show that the claimant suffered disability of 55%.

¶88

On considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering for crush injury. On considering Ex.A.7 coupled with evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards expenditure for treatment. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the claimant would have earned Rs. 10,000/- per month i.e., Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier `18', the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards the head of loss of earnings and disability. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 11,95,000/- to the. claimant.

¶89

Since the claimant was about 26 years at the time of the accident, as per the decision of Saria Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporations,

¶90

¶91

VGKR,1 MACMA No.1056 of 2012

¶92

the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is 17'. On applying the same, Rs.1,20,000/- x 55% x 17' _ Rs.11,22,0007- shall be given under the head of disability, but since the claimant claimed Rs.5,00,000/- only, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.5,00,000/- by restricting the claim to Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no illegality in awarding: the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶93

As seen from the material on record, the oral and documentary evidence clearly reveals that the driver of the offending van has possessed Learned licence (LLR) only at the time of the accident and did not possess any valid and effective driving licence.

¶94

The principle laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others2 is that even in case of absence, fake or invalid licence or disqualification of the driver for driving, the Insurance company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of 3rd party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of offending vehicle, even when the

¶95

2 2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36

¶96

¶97

VGKR,1 MACMA No.1056 of 2012

¶98

Insurance company could able to establish breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶99

In the result, the appeal is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, as awarded by the Tribunal, to the claimants and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending van by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. The 3rd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, before .th&Tribunal, and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending van. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to. .:withdraw the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest. No order as to costs.

¶100

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

¶101

Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGIST_RAR~ I/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶102

To,

¶103