Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Anantapur Rep. by Dm, v. S.a.Haroon and Others

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2023MACMA/1553/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by the insurer challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 1.3 lakhs. The court held that despite the driver having an expired license, the insurer must pay the award first and later recover from the owner, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; insurer directed to deposit Rs. 1,30,000 with 7.5% interest per annum within two months.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Anantapur Rep… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1553 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the impugned award and order passed in M.V.O.P.No.263 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards total compensation to the claimant, this instant appeal is preferred by 2^nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited questioning the legal validity of the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶5

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

¶6

The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by

¶7

¶8

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶9

the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.06.1999.

¶10

The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

¶11

On 23.06.1999 at 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was going on his TVS from Kutagulla to Kadiri and when he reached Amir Flour Mill, the jeep bearing No.AP 02A 8091 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and with a high speed and dashed the petitioner causing fractures on his right thigh bone hand, leg and rib and all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kadiri and thereafter he was shifted to the Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. A case in Crime No.83 of 1999 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle jeep by the Police, Kadiri Town Police Station.

¶12

1^st respondent remained ex parte .

¶13

2^nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter by denying

¶14

the claim of the claimants and pleaded that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶15

¶16

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶17

3^rd respondent filed a counter contending that he sold away

¶18

the offending vehicle to 1^st respondent and he is the absolute owner of the offending vehicle and 2^nd respondent/Insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.

¶19

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶20

Whether the accident occurred on 23.06.99 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing registration No.AP 02A 8091 by its driver, that the petitioner and caused injuries to the petitioner?

¶21

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶22

To what relief?

¶23

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked.

¶24

¶25

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶26

At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the entire

¶27

evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards total compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, this instant appeal is filed by 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company.

¶28

Heard Sri Yagna Narayana Chebralu, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited and

¶29

Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the claimant.

¶30

Now, the point for determination is:

¶31

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? To what extent?

¶32

POINT :

¶33

The case of the claim petitioner is that on 23.06.1999 while he

¶34

was going on his TVS from Kutagulla to Kadiri and when he reached Amir Flour Mill, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the claimant and resulting that he sustained severe fracture injuries. In order to prove the case

¶35

¶36

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶37

of the claimant, he himself examined as P.W.1, his evidence clearly goes to show that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle jeep. Ex.A1Certified Copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A3-Certified Copy of the Charge Sheet clearly goes to show that the case is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle jeep and concerned Sub-Inspector of Police also laid Charge Sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle jeep by fixing the liability against him. For contra, no evidence is adduced by the respondents to prove that the accident in question is occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle jeep. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the same conclusion that the accident in question is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle jeep. 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.

¶38

¶39

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶40

Coming to the compensation, the material on record reveals that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries out of which injury No.1 is grievous in nature and Injury Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the doctors who treated the petitioner. On considering the Ex.A11-bunch of medical bills and also other documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.96,820/- towards medical expenses and transport charges. On considering the entire material on record and Ex.A2-Certified Copy of Wounds Certificate and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/towards one grievous injury, an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards two simple injuries, an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings. Therefore, in total the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.1,29,820/-, the same is rounded to Rs.1,30,000/- total compensation. I do not find any illegality in awarding the total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the claimant.

¶41

¶42

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep did not possess any valid driving license at the time of accident, his driving license was expired long back to the date of accident. The appellant/Insurance Company examined the Superintendent in R.T.O. Office, Anantapur as R.W.2, as per his evidence the driver of the offending vehicle is authorized to drive light motor vehicle transport only. The said driving license of Chennakesavulu is valid from 21.09.95 to 20.09.98 and the said driving license was expired on 20.09.98. Subsequently, the said driving license has been renewed from 07.06.01 to 06.06.04 and Ex.B2 is the driving license extract of the driver. The date of accident in this case is 23.06.1999, therefore, the evidence of R.W.2 clearly goes to show that by the time of accident, the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle is not yet renewed. The principle laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others¹ case is that “even in case of absence, fake or

¶44

1 AIR 2004 SC 1531

¶45

¶46

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶47

invalid license or disqualification of the driver for driving, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of third party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, even when the Insurance Company could establish the breach of terms of the policy, on the part of the owner of the vehicle”. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the total compensation amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest as ordered by the Tribunal to the claimant in first and later recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶48

In the result, the appeal is disposed of. The order passed in M.V.O.P.No.263 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur is modified as appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal within two months from the date of this Judgment and later recover the total amount with interest and costs from the owner of the

¶49

¶50

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶51

offending vehicle jeep by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same with interest and costs. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

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

¶53

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

¶54

ANI 12-09-2023

¶55

¶56

VGKR,J MACMA No.1553 of 2013

¶57

154

¶58