Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B Thulasi and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/1402/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the APSRTC and an insurance company. The court reversed the lower appeals and confirmed the tribunal's award of Rs. 20.88 lakhs for death in a road accident, finding contributory negligence on the part of both the bus and lorry drivers.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed; the decree and order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.224 of 2011 is confirmed.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs B… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1402 of 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, Office at Cotton Market, Hubli and one of its Branch Office at no.43. White Roads, Chennai.

¶9

...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND

¶10

1. Smt. B.Thulasi, W/o Late B.Gopi, Hindu, aged 39 yrs, R/o. D.No. 4-3-372, Giripuram, Tirupati, Chittoor.

¶11

Sri B. Jaya Durga Prasad, S/o. Late. B.Gopi, aged 19 yrs,

¶12

(R2 is declared as major by discharging the guardianship of R1 wide c.o. dt.17/04/14 in CMP.1868/14 )

¶13

Sri B. Hemanth Prasad S/o. Late B.Gopi, Aged 19 yrs,

¶14

(R3 is declared as major vide Court Order dated 19.06.2017 in MACMAMP No.2160 of 2017)

¶15

... Respondent/Petitioner

¶16

4. M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

Sri Sangamesh Biradar, S/o Babu Rao Biradar, Hindu, R/o Hunusgera, Humanabad Taluk, Bidar District, Karnataka.

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT. praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and Judgment dated 01/03/2013 made in M.V.O.P.No.224 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.

¶20

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 Kota Subba Rao, for the Appellant and of Sri O Uday Kumar, for Respondent No.1,2&3. and Sri KV Subba Reddy, for Respondent No.4.

¶21

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶22

That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

That the decree and order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-com-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in

¶24

M.V.O.P.NO.224 of 2011 is confirmed.

¶25

That there no order as to costs.

¶26

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

SECTION OFFICER

¶29

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi,

¶30

Three CD Copies

sree

1^ '

HIGH COURT

DATED:08Z09/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1402 of 2014

¶38

5 0 4 DEC 2023
f^iirrAnt Current Section

¶39

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATlV^/o,,7 <

¶41

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶44

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1836 OF 2013

¶45

Between:

¶46

The A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶47

...Appellant/Respondent AND

¶48

1. Smt. B.Thulasi, W/o Late B.Gopi, aged 37 yrs., 2. Sri B.Jaya Durga Prasad, S/o late B.Gopi, aged 19 yrs..

¶49

(R-2 declared as major by discharging the guardianship of R-1 wide c.o.dt.3/7/14 is CMP. 1754/14. )

¶50

3. Sri B.Hemanth Prasad, S/o late B.Gopi, aged 12 years.,

¶51

(R-3 is minor, rep by its mother i.e. R1)

¶52

All R/o. D.No. 4-3-372, Giripuram, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶53

...Respondents/Claimants

¶54

Sangamesh Biradar, S/o Babu Rao Biradar, R/o Hunusgera, Humanabad Taluk, Bidar District, Karnataka State - 585329

¶55

The Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Office at Cotton Market, Hubli and one of its Branch Office at no.43, White Roads, Chennai, Tamilnadu

¶56

...Respondents/Respondents

¶57

¶58

.«' -

¶59

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 K.Viswanthan for the Appellant and of Sri O Uday Kumar for Respondent No.1,2&3.

¶60

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶61

That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

¶62

That the decree and order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Chairman Motor

¶63

Accidents Claims Tribunal-com-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in

¶64

M.V.O.P.NO.224 of 2011 is confirmed.

¶65

That there no order as to costs.

¶66

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

SECTION OFFICER

¶69

IV Additional District

¶70

’l. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Judge, Tirupathi.

¶71

Three CD Copies

sree

A-D- Uv

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2023

¶77

DECREE

¶78

MACMA.No.1836 of 2013

¶79

UCOpiG^

¶80

011 DEC 2023
,o
Current Section

¶81

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶83

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶86

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 1836 OF 2013 AND 1402 OF 2014

¶87

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1836 OF 2013

¶88

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT. praying that the Hiah Court mav Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.

¶89

Between:

¶90

The A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶91

...Appellant/Respondent AND

¶92

Smt. B.Thulasi, \N/o Late B.Gopi, aged 37 yrs., 2. Sri B.Jaya Durga Prasad, S/o late B.Gopi, aged 19 yrs.,

¶93

Sri B.Hemanth Prasad, S/o late B.Gopi, aged 12 years.,

¶94

A?r oz® •’y mother i.e. R1) All R/o. D.No. 4-3-372, Giripuram, Tirupati. Chittoor District.

¶95

...Respondents/Claimants

¶96

Humanabad Taluk,

¶97

...Respondents/Respondents

¶98

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. K VISWANATHAIM (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶99

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,&3: SRI O UDAYA KUMAR

¶100

¶101

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1402 of 2014

¶102

¶103

Between:

¶104

The Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, Office at Cotton Market, Hubli and one of its Branch Office at no.43. White Roads, Chennai.

¶105

...Appellant/Respondent No.3

¶106

AND

¶107

Smt. B.Thulasi, W/o Late B.Gopi, Hindu, aged 39 yrs, R/o. D.No. 4-3-372, Giripuram, Tirupati, Chittoor.

¶108

Sri B. Jaya Durga Prasad, S/o. Late. B.Gopi, aged 19 yrs,

¶109

(R2 is declared as major by discharging the guardianship of R1 wide c.o. dt.17/04/14 in CMP.1868/14 )

¶110

Sri B. Hemanth Prasad S/o. Late B.Gopi, Aged 19 yrs.

¶111

(R3 is declared as major vide Court Order dated 19.06.2017 in MACMAMP No.2160 of 2017)

¶112

... Respondent/Petitioner

¶113

4. M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶114

5. Sri Sangamesh Biradar, S/o Babu Rao Biradar, Hindu, R/o Hunusgera, Humanabad Taluk, Bidar District, Karnataka.

¶115

...Respondents/Respondents

¶116

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶117

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,&3: SRI O UDAYA KUMAR

¶118

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.V.SUBBA REDDY

¶119

The Court made the following:

¶120

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GQPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶121

M.A.C.M.A.No.1836 of 2013 and 1402 of 2014

¶122

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶123

Questioning the legal validity of the award dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in M.V.O.P.No.224 of .2011 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of 20,88,000/- to the petitioners and directed the V* respondent to deposit 75% of compensation and respondent Nos.2 & 3 to deposit 25% of compensation before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1836 of 2013 while the 3"^ respondenVlnsurance company filed l/l.A.C.M.A.No.1402 of 2014.

¶124

Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and order

¶125

passed in M.V.O.P..NO.224 of 2011, they are heard together and are

¶126

being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶127

¶128

VGKR.J MACMA.No. 1836 of2013& MAGMA No. 1402 of 2014

¶129

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

¶130

The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.32,02,000/- for the death of B. Gopi, who is husband of petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, in a road accident that took place on 29.04,2011.

¶131

Facts germane to dispose of the appeals may briefly be stated as follows;

¶132

On 28.04.2011 the deceased was driving Garuda Volvo Bus bearing registration No.AP 28Z 1436 plying from Tirupati to Hyderabad and when the said bus reached BSNL Tower near Thammarajupalli Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, at about 3.00 a.m. on 29.04.2011, due to fog in the early hours and reflection of lights from the opposite coming vehicles, the driver of the bus unable to notice a stationed lorry bearing registration No.KA39 5846,

¶133

¶134

VGKR.J MACMA.No. 1836 of2013& MACMA No.1402 of 2014

¶135

which was parked without any parking lights, signals and indications to identify the lorry, dashed on the back side of the lorry, as a result. the driver of the bus sustained bleeding injuries and later succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the G.G.H., Kurnool. The 1®* respondent is owner of the bus, the 2"^^ respondent is owner of the lorry, the respondent is insurer of the lorry, hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶136

The 2"'^ respondent was set ex parte. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age. avocation and income of the deceased.

¶137

i) It is pleaded by the 1®^ respondent/APSRTC that there is sole negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry, since he parked the lorry negligently on the road without taking any precautions, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, as such, the 1®‘ respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶138

■llJ-

¶139

¶140

VGKR.J MACM A.No.1836of2013& MACMANo.1402 of 2014

¶141

ii) The 3'"* respondent/lnsurance company pleaded that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, a complaint was lodged by one of the passengers of the bus against the driver of the bus for his rash and negligent driving of the bus, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶142

Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were

¶143

framed for trial by the Tribunal:

¶144

Whether the deceased viz., B. Gopi died due to receiving injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.04.2011 near BSNL towers of Thummarajupalli on NH 16, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing regn.No.KA39 5846 of second respondent vehicle and APSRTC bus bearing regn.No.AP 28Z 1436 as alleged?

¶145

Whether the petitioners being L.Rs. of deceased are entitled for the compensation amount? If so, what is the quantum of compensation amount and against whom?

¶146

¶147

¶148

VGKR,J MACMA.No.1836of2013& MAGMA No.1402of2014

¶149

To what relief?

¶150

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶151

At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the RTC bus and the stationed lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and granted a total compensation of Rs.20,88,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and directed the respondent to deposit 75% of compensation and respondent Nos.2 & 3 to deposit 25% of compensation before the Tribunal. 1st Aggrieved thereby. the respondent/APSRTC filed

¶152

¶153

VGKR,J MACMA.No. 1836 of2013& MACMA No.1402 of 2014

¶154

MAC.M.A.No.1836 of 2013, while the 3^^ respondent/lnsurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1402 of 2014.

¶155

10., Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

¶156

11. Now, the point for determination is:

¶157

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

¶158

12. POINT: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no

¶159

need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶160

In order to establish their case, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye witness to the accident. She

VGKR.J MACMA.No.1836 of2013& MACMA No. 1402 of 2014

¶165

reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief-examination affidavit. In cross-examination, she stated that due to negligence of the lorry driver, who stationed the lorry on the main road without signals, the accident took place and there was no fault with her husband and she denied the suggestions put to her by the learned counsels for the respondents that the accident took place out of negligence of her husband and there is no fault with the driver of the lorry.

¶166

14. P.W.3, who is the co-driver of the offending bus at the time of accident, in his evidence deposed that on the date of accident, due to fog in the early hours and reflection of lights from the opposite coming vehicles, the driver of the bus unable to notice the stationed lorry. which was parked without any parking lights, signals and indication to identify the lorry, dashed on the back side of the lorry, due to which. the driver of the bus sustained severe bleeding injuries and later died on the same day while undergoing treatment in the G.G.H., Kurnool. In cross examination, he stated that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the lorry as he parked the lorry without

¶167

1 i

¶168

¶169

VGKR.J MACMA.No. 1836 of2013& MAGMA No. 1402 of 2014

¶170

taking any precautions and he also denied the contra suggestions put to him by the learned counsels for the respondents.

¶171

15. Except cross-examining P.Ws.1 and 3, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. Moreover, the respondents did not choose to examine at least the driver of the stationed lorry as he is the best person to speak about the manner of accident and to establish their case that he parked the lorry by taking all precautions and there is no negligence on his part.

¶172

16. Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the bus. Ex.A.5-certified copy of final report reveals that the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind the stationed lorry. Ex.A.2-certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of post mortem report of the deceased go to show that the deceased died in the accident in question. Ex.A.4-certified copy of M.V.I. report

■X<-

VGKR,J MAGMA.No. 1836 of2013& MAGMA No.1402 of 2014

¶177

reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the bus.

¶178

17. On considering the entire material on record, it is clear that the lorry was wrongly parked on the road without putting on parking lights, signals, indicators, etc. and without taking proper care and the driver of the RTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed lorry. In view of the same, this Court finds that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the RTC bus and the stationed lorry and by the use of the said vehicles the accident took place in which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and later succumbed to injuries. On appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶179

18. Coming to the award of compensation, on considering Ex.X.1salary certificate of the deceased and Ex.A.2-inquest report and

¶180

¶181

VGKR.J MACMA.No. 1836 of2013& MACMA No. 1402 of 2014

¶182

Ex.A.3-post mortem report, the Tribunal arrived the net monthly income of the deceased at Rs. Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.1,80,000/- per annum and also came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged below 50 years. Since the deceased was a permanent employee in the _1®‘ respondent corporation, the Tribunal rightly added 30% of salary towards future prospects and arrived the annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,34.000/- (Rs.1,80.000/- + Rs.54.000/-). After deducting 1/3''= from out of annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier ‘13’ to the age group of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived the loss of dependency of family members of the deceased at Rs.20.28,000/- (Rs. 1,56,000/(Rs.2,34,000/- - Rs.78,000/-) x multiplier ‘13’). In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Rs.15.000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.25.000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation

1 I

VGKR.J MACMA.No.1836 of 2013& MAGMA No.1402 of 2014

¶188

of Rs.20,88,000/-. No appeal or cross-objections is filed by the

¶189

petitioners for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal in awarding the quantum of compensation.

¶190

Coming to the liability, as stated supra, the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the RTC bus and the lorry. The Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, fixed 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the

¶191

1®^ respondent/APSRTC and directed the 1®* respondent to pay 75% of compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from out of Rs.20,88,000/and 25% negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry

¶192

belonging to the 2'^^ respondent and directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., insured and insurer of the lorry to pay the remaining 25%

¶193

of compensation i.e., Rs.5,22,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. thereon . There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶194

¶195

VGKR,J MACMA.No. 1836 of2013& MACMA No. 1402 of 2014

¶196

20. For the foregoing discussion. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and it is perfectly sustainable under law and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶197

21. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed, while confirming the decree and order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Chairman. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in M.V.O.P.No.224 of 2011. No order as to costs.

¶198

Miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in the appeals shall

¶199

stand closed.

¶200

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER

¶201

To,
1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District
Judge, Tirupathi.(with records if any)
2. One CC to Sri K Viswanatham (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri O Udaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri KV Subba Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
6. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
7. Three CD Copies
GR
sree

¶202

HIGH COURT

¶203

DATED:08/09/2023

¶204

COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶205

MACMA.No’s.1836 of 2013 and 1402 of 2014

¶206

an £>75^
g 0« DEC 2023
Ad P
Current Section .

¶207

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A 1836 OF 2013 AND 1402 OF 2014 WITHOUT COSTS

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B Thulasi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B Thulasi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aluri Naga Lakshmi and 6 Others

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Singareddy Pulla Reddy

S.Balakka and 3 Others Vs D.Raju and Another

Duvvuru Lakshmi Prasanna and 3 Others Vs Subhashini and Another

The Royal Sundaram Alliance insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Katterepalli Venkata Subba Reddy

P Lakshmi Devi and 3 Others Vs Mr Jageshwar and Another