Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Turla Yallayamma and 7 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2023MACMA/615/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. against an Award of Rs.4.14 lakh passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kakinada, was dismissed. The Court held no legal flaw or infirmity in the Tribunal's finding on facts and law. The appeal is devoid of merits, and the Award is confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the Award of Rs. 4,14,500/- passed by the Tribunal was confirmed.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Turla Yallayamma and… — Insurance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 615 OF 2013

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT. aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 02.11.2012 passed in OP.No.190/2010^on the file of The Motor Accidents Tribunal (III Additional District Court)^Kakinada.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shriram General Insurance Co. LTD., D.No. 1-83-14/2, Plot No. 4, Seactor-3, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...Appellant/Respondent N0.3

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. Turla Yallayamma, W/o. Late Chinna Apparao, Aged 38 years. Housewife, R/o. Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶12

Sri Turla Lovaraju, S/o. Late China Apparao, aged 19 years. Coolie, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶13

Sri Turla Ayyanna, S/o. Late China Apparao, aged 16 years. Student, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶14

Sri Turla Rajesh, S/o. Late China Apparao, aged 13 years. Student , Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶15

Sri Turla Devi Jagadeeshwari, D/o. Late China Apparao, aged 10 years Student, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶16

Smt. Turla Chinayyamma, W/o. Late China Apparao, aged 67 years Housewife, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶17

Sri Turla Apparao, S/o.Late Ayanna, aged 77 years Coolie, Koripeta Colony, Rajahmundry, Yeleswaram.

¶18

Sri Gulimi Trimurthulu, S/o. Simhachalam, aged about 34 years D.No. 4-263, padda Street, East Godavari District, Owner of Auto bearing NO. AP 05 TU 3496. (RR No. 3 to 5 are being minor Rep. by their mother i.e. R1)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013fMACMAMP. NO: 1470 OF 2013)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of execution of the order and decree dated 2-11-2012 madeⁱⁿ OP No. 190 of 2010 on the file of THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (III ADDL DISTRICT COURT), KAKINADA pending disposal of MACMA.

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fMACMAMP. NO: 495 OF 2014)

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To vacate the interim orders dated 15/3/2013 in MACMA.MP.No.1470 of 2013 in MACMA.No.615 of 2013.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V HEMANTH KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D V CHALAPATHI RAO

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶30

M.A.C.M.A.N0.615 OF 2013

¶31

JUDGMENT:

¶32

This appeal is filed against the Award, dated 02.11.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada, whereby a claim of Rs.4,14,500/- was awarded^towards compensation to the claimants, this instant appeal^{ispreferredby} the respondent No.2/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, questioning the legal validity of the Award^passedbythe Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the^appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim^application.

¶33

The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for seeking compensation^of Rs.5,00,000/for the death of the deceased Thurala China Apparao in a Motor Vehicle Road Accident that occurred on 25.01.2010.

¶34

¶35

VGKRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2013

¶36

Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly^stated as follows:-

¶37

On 25.01.2010, the deceased who was the driver of the^Auto bearing Registration No.AP 5 TU 3496 was returning from J.Annavaram, after dropping the passengers to his village Yeleswaram and at about 4.00 p.m., when he came 1 k.m. away from J.Annavaram, the Auto ran over a big stone which was on the road, due to which, hit auto turned turtle causing injures on his head and other parts of the body and it caused instantaneous death. The accident occurred due to the stone on the road and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. A case in Crime No. 11 of 2010 for the offenee punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., was registered by the Station House Officer, Yeleswaram Police Station, basing^on the report given by the 1 petitioner.

¶38

¶39

The respondent No.l remained ex parte.

¶40

The 2"d respondent filed a written statement by denying^the claim of the claimants.

¶41

¶42

¶43

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2013

¶44

Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the relevant issues framed for trial by the Tribunal are:-

¶45

Whether the accident occurred out of the use of Auto bearing Registration No.AP 5 TU 3496 by the deceased and whether deceased died in the said accident?

¶46

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

¶47

ui) To what relief?

¶48

During the course of the enquiry, on behalf of the claimants. PWs. 1 and 2 are examined and marked Ex.Al to A3. On behalf of the 2'^'^ respondent/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, RW-1 is examined and marked Ex.Bl.

¶49

Heard Sri V. Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents.

¶50

Now the point for determination is:

¶51

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶52

If so, to what extent?

¶53

¶54

¶55

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2013

¶56

POINT;-

¶57

The law is well settled in the claim application filed by the claimants. Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, there is no need to prove the rash and negligent driving of^{thedriverofthe} offending vehicle. The proof of mere involvement of the offending vehicle is sufficient in a claim application filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The material on record reveals that the Auto bearing registration No.AP 5 TU 3496 is involved in the accident which was driven by the^driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the deceased herein. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased. On appreciation^of the entire material on record, the Tribunal rightly^{heldinitsorder} that the accident took place out of use of the Auto bearing registration No.AP 5 TU 3496 and the deceased died due to the injuries received in the said accident.

¶58

Coming to the compensation, the Ex.A2 post mortem examination report shows that the deceased is aged about 38 years by the date of accident. The relevant multiplier applicable^tothe age group of the deceased is ‘15’ and the deceased was driver-cumowner of the offending vehicle. '

¶59

¶60

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2013

¶61

The contention of the claimants is that the deceased^usedto earn an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month by driving the Auto. In fact, no documentary evidence is produced by the claimants to show that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal rightly^heldin its order that the daily income of the deceased was Rs. 100/- per day (Rs.lOO/- X 30 = Rs.3,000/-) i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. 1 do not find any legal flaw, or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶62

The Tribunal rightly deducted 1 /4‘h of the amount^towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net contribution^which comes to Rs.27,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, came to a conclusion that the claimants are^entitled for

¶63

an amount of Rs.4,05,000/towards loss of dependency. In addition to the said amount, the first petitioner/wife^wasawarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium,^anamountof Rs.4,500/was awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses by the Tribunal. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,14,500/- towards total compensation.

¶64

¶65

VGKRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2013

¶66

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident in question occurred due to negligence of^{thedriver-cum-} owner of the offending vehicle i.e., deceased. As state supra, in the claim application filed by the claimants under Section^163-Aofthe Motor Vehicle Act, question of deciding the negligence^isnotatall required. Ex.B-10 is a comprehensive policy under which, the offending vehicle/Auto is insured and it covers the risk of the driver-cum-owner of the deceased by the date of accident^andthe policy is in force. Ex.B-1 policy clearly goes to show that the premium was paid for covering the risk of the party^andalso the risk of the owner-cum-driver by paying the separate premium of Rs. 100/- and also an amount of Rs.25/- for one paid driver. The RWl i.e., official of the Insurance Company also supports the

¶67

same. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal rightly awarded towards compensation of Rs.4,14,500/- by fastening the liability on both the respondents. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶68

Therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits.

¶69

¶70

¶71

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 2013

¶72

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶73

As sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingⁱⁿ this appeal shall stand closed.

SD/- U. SRIDEVl

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III addl. District court), Kakinada.

¶80

One CC to SRI. V HEMANTH KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

One CC to SRI. D V CHALAPATHI RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶82

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh^at Amaravati.

¶83

Three CD Copies.

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED; 12/09/2023

JUDGEMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.615 of 2013

¶90

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED

¶91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶92

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶95

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 615 OF 2013

¶96

Between:

¶97

Shriram General Insurance CO. LTD., D.No. 1-83-14/2, Plot No. 4, Seactor-3, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

¶98

...Appellant/Respondent N0.3

¶99

AND

¶100

Smt. Turla Yallayamma, W/o. Late Chinna Apparao, Aged 38 years. Housewife, R/o. Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶101

Sri Turla Lovaraju, S/o. Late China Apparao, aged 19 years. Coolie, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶102

Sri Turla Ayyanna, S/o. Late China Apparao, aged 16 years. Student, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶103

Sri Turla Rajesh, S/o. Late China Apparao, aged 13 years. Student, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶104

Sri Turla Devi Jagadeeshwari, D/o. Late China Apparao, aged 10 years. Student, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶105

Smt. Turla Chinayyamma, W/o. Late China Apparao, aged 67 years Housewife, Rajahmundry Colony, Yeleswaram.

¶106

Sri Turla Apparao, S/o.Late Ayanna, aged 77 years Coolie, Koripeta Colony, Rajahmundry, Yeleswaram.

¶107

Sri Gulimi Trimurthulu, S/o. Simhachalam, aged about 34 years D.No. 4-263, padda Street, East Godavari District, Owner of Auto bearing NO. AP 05 TU 3496. (RR No. 3 to 5 are being minor Rep. by their mother i.e. R1)

¶108

...RESPONDENTS

¶109

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT. aggrieved by the decree and judgment ^ dated 02.11.2012 passed in OP.No. 190/2010 on the file of The Motor Accidents ’ Tribunal (III Additional District Court) Kakinada.

¶110

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 V Hemanth Kumar for the Appellant and of Sri D V Chalapathi Rao for Respondent.

¶111

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶112

That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

¶113

That the award passed by the tribunal be and hereby^isconfirmed. 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶114

SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III addl. District court), Kakinada.

¶119

Three CD Copies.

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12/09/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.615 of 2013

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Turla Yallayamma and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Turla Yallayamma and 7 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

Duvvuru Lakshmi Prasanna and 3 Others Vs Subhashini and Another

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

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

Kamepalli Sitaramaiah Vs Nalluri Krishna Mohan Rao

D.Prabhavathi and 4 Ors. Vs M.Yalladri and Anr.

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