Dismissed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/3722/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The single-judge bench affirmed the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving, upheld the quantum of compensation based on the deceased's salary and multiplier, and confirmed the liability of both the car owner and insurer.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal's award is confirmed.

The Royal Sundaram Alliance insurance Co. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.3722 of 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellant is 2^nd respondent/Insurance company and respondents are claimant Nos.1 & 2 and 1^st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appellant/2^nd respondent/Insurance company filed the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶5

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

¶6

The claimants 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.21,50,000/- for the death of K. Raja Sekhar (hereinafter be referred as „the deceased‟), who is son of the claimants, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.08.2010.

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶10

On 01.08.2010 at about 1.15 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding on his scooty bearing registration No.AP-03-AL-7865 along with one Vijaya as a pillion rider to go to Talakona and when they reached near Mangampet-Bhakarapet Road, a Maruthi Suzuki Car bearing registration No.AP-03-AN-1498 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the scooty, as a result, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down and the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the Hospital. In connection with the above incident, a case in Crime No.33 of 2010 of Bhakarapet Police Station was registered against the driver of the Maruthi Suzuki Car. The 1^st respondent is the owner of the car and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the car. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶11

The 1^st respondent filed a written statement by denying the claim of the claimants. It is submitted that the claim of the claimants is excessive.

¶12

The 2^nd respondent also filed a written statement by denying the claim of the claimants. It is pleaded that the claim of the

¶13

¶14

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶15

claimants is excessive and the 1^st respondent failed to inform the accident and other particulars to the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶16

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

¶17

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi car bearing No.AP-03AN-1498 resulting the death of the deceased by name K. Rajasekhara Reddy, on 01.08.2010?

¶18

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶19

(3) To what relief?

¶20

During the course of the enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Exs.X.1 to X.9 were marked. On behalf of the 1^st respondent/owner of the car, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B.4 was marked.

¶21

¶22

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶23

At the culmination of the enquiry, basing on the material on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.17,11,600/with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount, against both the respondents. Aggrieved by the said award, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company preferred the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶24

Heard Sri Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company and Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants and perused the material on record.

¶25

Now the point for determination is:-

¶26

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

¶27

POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the claimants relied on the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record coupled with Ex.A.1-certified copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A.4-

¶28

¶29

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶30

certified copy of the Charge Sheet, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶31

Coming to the compensation, the claimants relied on the evidence of P.W.3, Ex.A.5-salary certificate and also other documentary evidence. As seen from the material on record, the deceased was the son of the claimants. He was working as Junior Officer in Sparkline Mining Corporation, Ballary. Basing on the evidence of P.W.3 who is the Manager Personnel and Administration in Sparkline Mining Corporation, Ballary, and Ex.A.5, the Tribunal has taken the quantum of salary as Rs.17,000/- per month (which is last paid drawn) i.e., Rs.2,04,000/per annum. Out of which, an amount of Rs.4,400/- has to be deducted towards income tax and the remaining amount of Rs.1,99,600/- is taken as annual income of the deceased by the Tribunal. Since the deceased was bachelor, 50% of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting the said 50% of the amount towards personal expenses and since the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applied is „17‟, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.16,96,600/- towards loss

¶32

¶33

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶34

of dependency. Therefore, in my view, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is just and proper. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶35

Apart from the above amount, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.17,11,600/- to the claimants, which is just, proper and fair compensation.

¶36

It is represented by both the parties that there are no violations in the policy and the car is insured with the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company and the driver of the car is having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on both the respondents and directed them to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶37

For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

¶39

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed while confirming the decree and order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2011. No order as to costs.

¶41

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

¶42

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

¶43

8^th September, 2023 cbn

¶44

¶45

VGKR,J MACMA No.3722 of 2014

¶46

HON‟BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶47

C-139

¶48

M.A.C.M.A.No.3722 of 2014

¶49

8^th September, 2023

¶50

cbn

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

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

P Lakshmi Devi and 3 Others Vs Mr Jageshwar and Another