Partly allowed

Peetani Nageswara Rao and 2 Ors. v. D.Krishna and 4 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2023MACMA/2141/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an appeal filed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court increased the compensation from Rs. 4,19,005 to Rs. 4,60,339. It apportioned 75% negligence to the auto driver and 25% to the bus driver. The Insurance company was directed to pay the 75% share first to recover later from the unlicensed auto driver/owner.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,60,339/-; 5th Respondent (Insurer) to pay 75% first; 2nd Respondent (APSRTC) to pay 25%.

Peetani Nageswara Rao and 2 Ors. Vs D.Krishna… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2141 of 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved against the award dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in M.V.O.P.No.1042 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,19,005/- as against the claim of Rs.6,36,500/-, the petitioners preferred the instant appeal.

¶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 claim petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.6,36,500/- towards compensation for the death of P. Rajya Lakshmi, who is daughter of

¶7

¶8

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶9

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and elder sister of the 3^rd petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.04.2008.

¶10

The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

¶11

On 03.04.2008 at 10.30 a.m. the deceased along with others was travelling in an auto bearing registration No.AP 35U 6470 and after overtaking a bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 6255, the said auto fell in a ditch on the road and turned turtle and thereby, the deceased and other passengers in the auto fell on the road and the bus ran over the deceased resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The 1^st respondent and his Union influenced the police personnel and got registered a case in crime No.46 of 2008 by the Bobbili P.S. against the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st respondent is driver and the 2^nd respondent is owner of the bus. The 3^rd respondent is driver, the 4^th respondent is owner and the 5^th respondent is insurer of the auto. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶14

Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 were set ex parte . Respondent Nos.2 and 5 filed written statements separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

¶15

i) It is pleaded by the 2^nd respondent/APSRTC that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus.

¶16

ii) It is pleaded by the 5^th respondent/Insurance company that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto and the claim of the petitioners is exorbitant.

¶17

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

¶18

Whether the motor vehicle accident on 3.4.2008 at cross road of Gollapalli and Pridi Village, arose on account of rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6265 by R.1/driver, resulting the death of the deceased Petani Rajya Lakshmi?

¶19

¶20

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶21

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? and

¶22

To what relief?

¶23

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

¶24

the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 5, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked.

¶25

At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and granted a sum of Rs.4,19,005/towards compensation to the claim petitioners against respondent Nos.3 and 4 only and dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and also dismissed the claim of the 3^rd petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claim petitioners filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the

¶26

¶27

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶28

compensation and for exonerating the 5^th respondent/Insurance company from payment of the compensation.

¶29

Heard Sri P.A.N.V. Ravi Teja, learned counsel, representing Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/APSRTC, and Smt. A. Malathi, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent/Insurance company, and perused the record.

¶30

Now, the points for determination are:

¶31

1. Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

¶32

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

¶33

POINT Nos.1 and 2 : The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act whereunder the petitioners need not prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident.

¶34

¶35

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶36

It is the case of the petitioners that on 03.04.2008 at 10.30 a.m. the deceased along with others was travelling in an auto bearing registration No.AP 35U 6470 and after overtaking a bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 6255, the said auto fell in a ditch on the road and turned turtle and thereby, the deceased and other passengers in the auto fell on the road and the bus ran over the deceased resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 1^st respondent and his Union influenced the police personnel and got registered a case in crime No.46 of 2008 by the Bobbili P.S. against the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

In order to establish the accident, the petitioners got examined the 2^nd petitioner as P.W.1. P.W.1, who too was travelling in the auto along with the deceased at the time of accident, deposed in her chief examination affidavit that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the auto was examined as R.W.2. In his evidence in chief examination, R.W.2 attributed rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus resulting in the accident. A

¶38

¶39

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶40

perusal of Ex.A.2-attested copy of post mortem examination certificate, Ex.A.3-attested copy of inquest report, and Ex.B.3-scene observation report disclose that the death of the deceased caused due to the accident in question. In view of the above, this Court finds that the deceased died in the accident in question that arose out of use of the auto and the bus and due to composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto only resulting in the death of the deceased, is liable to be set aside.

¶41

Ex.A.1-first information report goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the offending auto. Ex.B.3-charge sheet reveals that after completion of investigation into the case, a charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending auto. On considering Exs.A.1 and Ex.B.3 and also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it is appropriate to fix 25% contributory negligence on the driver of the offending bus and

¶42

75% contributory negligence on the driver of the offending auto.

¶43

¶44

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶45

Coming to the compensation, as per Ex.A.5-S.S.C. Certificate of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased is 23.09.1985 and she was aged about 23 years. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal fixed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-. The dependents on the deceased are in two number. Since the claim application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If it is so deducted, an amount of Rs.26,667/- (Rs.40,000/- - Rs.13,333/-) is available towards contribution to the family members of the deceased. As stated supra, the deceased was aged about 23 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘17’ as per II Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act, and accordingly, the loss of dependency to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.4,53,339/- (Rs.26,667/- x multiplier ‘17’). In addition to that, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, an amount of Rs.4,60,339/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioners.

¶46

¶47

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶48

In order to establish its case that the 3^rd respondent/driver of the offending auto was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the 5^th respondent/Insurance company got examined the driver of the offending auto as R.W.2 and relied on Ex.B.3-charge sheet. A careful perusal of Ex.B.3 shows that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been shown as accused in Crime No.46 of 2008 registered relating to the accident in question for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC, and under Section 3 r/w 181, Section 5 r/w 180, Section 134 r/w 187 a & b of the Act and the specific accusation made against the 4^th respondent is with regard to his allowing the offending auto to be plied by the 3^rd respondent who does not have any driving licence. Further, R.W.2 has specifically admitted during the course of his cross-examination that he did not have any driving licence. In the instant case, no documentary evidence is placed on record by the petitioners to prove that the driver of the offending auto was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The evidence of R.W.2 coupled with Ex.B.2 clearly proves that the driver of the offending auto/3^rd

¶49

¶50

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶51

respondent was not holding driving licence at the time of accident and thereby, the 4^th respondent/owner of the offending auto violated the conditions of the policy.

¶52

It is not in dispute that the offending auto of the 4^th respondent was insured with the 5^th respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1 policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of accident and the driver of the offending bus/1^st respondent was working under the control of the 2^nd respondent/APSRTC.

¶53

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 licence 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 offending vehicle, even when the Insurance company could able to establish

¶54

1 2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36

¶55

¶56

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶57

breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶58

For the foregoing discussion, the 5^th respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay 75% of the compensation to the petitioners in the first instance and later recover the same from the 4^th respondent/owner of the offending auto, by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit, and the 2^nd respondent/APSRTC is liable to pay the remaining 25% of compensation to the petitioners.

¶59

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation of Rs.4,19,005/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.4,60,339/-. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.41,334/- along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal equally. The 2^nd respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit 25% of total compensation amount i.e., Rs.1,15,085/- with costs and interest as ordered by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment, and the 5^th

¶60

¶61

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶62

respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining 75% of total compensation amount i.e., Rs.3,45,254/- with costs and interest as ordered by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal in the first instance within two months from the date of this judgment and later recover the same from the 4^th respondent/owner of the offending auto by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. The order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶64

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

¶65

15^th September, 2023 cbs

¶66

¶67

VGKR,J MACMA No.2141 of 2012

¶68

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶69

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2141 of 2012

¶70

15^th September, 2023

¶71

cbs

Peetani Nageswara Rao and 2 Ors. v. D.Krishna and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peetani Nageswara Rao and 2 Ors. v. D.Krishna and 4 Ors.

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

The Ongole Municipality, by Its Commissioner, Ongole Vs Mohammad in Fran and 32 Ors.

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

National Insurance Company Litd Vs Dasari Lakshmi Devi and 2 Others

Kamepalli Sitaramaiah Vs Nalluri Krishna Mohan Rao

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Bandla Palli Chinnakka

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Y. Hymavathi and 5 Ors.