Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. B.Y. Ramaiah and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2024MACMA/1473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court reduced a Tribunal award from Rs.50,000 to Rs.6,000, stating that liability for property damage is strictly limited under Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed in part; the Tribunal award of Rs.50,000 was modified to Rs.6,000 payable by the owner and insurer.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs B.Y… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1473 of 2016

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2007 in MVOP.No.232 of 2004 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal cum I Additional Ditrict Judge, at Kurnool.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 9-3-143, Old Club Road, Near Vinodh Mahal, Branch Office, Khammam.

¶9

...Appellant/Respondent-3

¶10

AND

¶11

B.Y. Ramaiah, S/o. B. Puttalaiah, Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o. Plot No.30, Rajeswari Nagar, B. Camp, Kurnool.

¶12

Md. Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed, Lorry Driver 19-1-873, Bahadurpurah, Hyderabad.

¶13

(R2-dismissed for default vide court order dated 16.02.2015)

¶14

A. Shiva Jalender, S/o. Mallikarjunappa, aged 28 years, Hindu, Lorry Owner, H.No.2-3-310, HKT Transport, Khammam.

¶15

...Respondents/Petitioner-1/Respondents 1 & 2

¶16

LA. NO: 2 OF 2008(MACMAMP. NO: 1500 OF 2008)

¶17

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 stay the order passed in OP.No.232/2004 dated 28.02.2007^{onthefileofthelearned} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal cum 1®‘ Additional District Judge, at Kurnool.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. A. Jayanthi

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared

¶20

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶21

APHC010260882016 in THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 3364 MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF ] FEBRUARY

¶22

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU

¶25

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1473 OF 2016

¶26

Between:

¶27

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 9-3-143, Old Club Road, Near Vinodh Mahal,

¶28

...APPELLANT(S)

¶29

AND

¶30

B Y RAMAIAH AND 2 OTHERS, S/o. B. Puttalaiah R/o.^Plot No.30, Rajeswari Nagar, B. Camp,

¶31

Md Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Lorry Driver 19-1-873, Bahadurpurah, Hyderabad.

¶32

A Shiv a Jalender Hindu, S/o. Mallikarjunappa Lorry^Owner H.No.2-3-310, HKT Transport, Khammam.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

JUDGMENT:-

¶36

This MACMA is directed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which was shown as third respondent in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accidents^Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool ("Tribunal"^for short), against the award, dated 28.02.2007, where^underthe Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner for a sum of

¶37

¶38

Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages of the Car in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.7.2003, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶39

The parties to this MAGMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶40

The original claim before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was for claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner as set out before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 30-07-2003 the petitioner was proceeding to Hyderabad from Kurnool with his family members in his car bearing No.AP-28-N-9899. When it reached near Tadbun Cross Roads, near Bahadurpurah, a lorry bearing^No.AP- 16-T-3961 (hereinafter will be referred to as "offending vehicle") came with full speed in a rash and negligent manner and ran into the rear portion of the car. On account of the said impact rear portion of the car of the petitioner was hit to the vehicle which was in front of it and thereby there was extensive damage to the car of the petitioner both on rear and front portions of it. Thus, the damage was caused to the car of the petitioner on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle which was insured with the third respondent with policy No.610902/31/02/20390. The policy was also in force by the date of accident. After the accident the petitioner gave

¶41

V”

¶42

complaint to Bahadurpurah Police Station and basing on his complaint, a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle U/Sec.279 of the Indian Penal Code^("IPC"for short). The petitioner got his car repaired with Star^Motors at Kurnool by spending Rs.70,000/-. A notice was also^giventoall the respondents by the petitioner on 01-12-2003 and for the said notice the respondents did not respond. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/i.e., Rs.70,000/towards repairs effected to his car and Rs.30,000/-^towardsthe amount spent by him in engaging another car for his own purpose.

¶43

The respondent Nos.l and 2 i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal.

¶44

It is the third respondent who got filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioner. The contention^ofthethird respondent according to the contents of the counter,^inbrief, is that this respondent does not know the fact that Indica Car beating N<d.AP-28-N-9899 was damaged on account of^rashand negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and thereby there was damage to rear and front portions^of it and the same is to be proved by the petitioner strictly^byplacing

¶45

¶46

necessary oral and documentary evidence. It is according^tothis respondent, negligence was on the part of the petitioner alone, as he drove the car negligently and hit it to another^vehiclethat was going in front of it. Therefore, the driver, owner^and the insurer of the Car are to be added as parties to the petition. The petitioner must prove that he spent about Rs.70,000/to get his car repaired and he also incurred Rs.30,000/for engaging another vehicle for his own purpose etc. The particulars furnished by the petitioner in Para No.¹² of the petition are false and misleading the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads is excessive. exorbitant and without any basis. The petitioner must prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and subsisting driving license by the date of accident^and that the above said vehicle was having valid permit, fitness certificate etc. Without proof of these facts, the petitioner may not get any compensation from this respondent even under 'no fault liability'. Mere filing of the First Information Report and charge sheet is not sufficient to say that the negligence^was there on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. Even if it is proved by the petitioner that the offending vehicle has got valid insurance with this respondent,^ason the date of the accident, the liability of this respondent is subject to

¶47

¶48

the statutory provisions of M.V. Act in compliance^of64-VBof the Insurance Act and the policy conditions. This respondent more than Rs.6,000/-. may not be held liable to pay The Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings 6) settled the following issues for trial

¶49

(1) Whether the accident, dated 30-07-2003 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing NO.AP-16-T-3961, by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any damages, and if so from which of the respondents and, and to what extent? (3) To What relief?

¶50

The petitioner before the Tribunal examined himself as P.W.l and got marked Ex.A.l to Ex.A.9. of the third respondent i.e.. 8) The representative examined as R.W.l, who put forth the facts Senior Assistant was in tune with the contents of the counter of the third respondent. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record. 9) awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay the compensation within one month from the date of order and that on such deposit the withdraw the entire amount. Felt petitioner is at liberty to

¶51

¶52

aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the unsuccessful third respondent i.e., insurance company filed the present MACMA.

¶53

In the present MACMA, the claim against the driver of the offending vehicle was dismissed vide order, dated 18.04.2016. The driver of the offending vehicle is shown as second respondent in the present MACMA. The petitioner i.e., first respondent and further the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the third respondent having received the notices did not contest the MACMA.

¶54

Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

¶55

(1) Whether the petitioner before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was on account of rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle who was shown as first respondent in MVOP and who is no other than the second respondent in the present MACMA?

¶56

(2) Whether the order, dated 28.02.2007, the Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/is tenable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

¶57

Point Nos.l and 2:

¶58

The main thrust of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. A. Jayanthi, is that according to

¶59

¶60

Ex.B.l policy in view of Section 147(2)(b) of MV Act,^theliability of the insurance connpany as against the damage of^theproperty of, the third party shall be confined only to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. In other words, the appellant/insurance^company is bound to compensate the person who is a third party for the property damage only to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. When this contention was specifically raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not consider it properly and without proper^reasons awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/towards compensation. She would contend that the original claimant was supposed to get insurance coverage with regard to his car for personal^accident coverage as well as the damage to the own car and the petitioner did not plead anything in this regard. However, as per law, the liability of the appellant shall be only^{Rs.6,000/-,as} such, the order of Tribunal needs appropriate interference.

¶61

As seen from the evidence of P.W.l before the Tribunal, he was a witness to the occurrence and in his chief examination affidavit he put forth the facts in tune with the petition contents. Through his examination Ex.A.l to^A.9were marked. Ex.A.l was Surveyor's report with photos and negatives. Ex.A.2 was Photostat copy of registration certificate of the damage vehicle. Ex.A.3 was office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A.4 was postal receipt. Ex.A.5 was acknowledgment

¶62

¶63

for receipt of legal notice. Ex.A.6 was certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.l46 of 2003, dated 30.07.2003 of Bahgadurpura Police Station. Ex.A.7 was certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.269 of 2003, on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ex.A.8 was certified copy of the judgment of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ex.A.9 was cash receipts four in number.

¶64

A perusal of Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 goes to prove that the police basing on the report of P.W.l registered FIR in Cr.No.l46 of 2003 under Section 279 of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet in^C.C.No.269of 2003, on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad^and further the matter was disposed finding the first respondent guilty of the offence under Section 279 of IPC and subjecting him to fine. Thus, as pointed out, the driver and owner^ofthe offending vehicle did not contest the claim. So, the evidence adduced by the petitioner insofar as the fact that^theaccident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver^ofthe offending vehicle remained unrebutted. Hence, the petitioner^is able to prove this aspect before the Tribunal.

¶65

There is no dispute that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., A. Shiva Jalender/second respondent in^the claim and third respondent in the present MACMA insured the

¶66

¶67

offending vehicle under Ex.B.l, insurance policy, with the appellant, who was shown as third respondent. There is no dispute that the petitioner was no other than third party whose car was said to be damaged on account of the act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.B.l policy was pertaining to the offending vehicle. As seen from Ex.B.l, a copy of insurance policy, there was a clear whisper limiting the third party liability pertaining to the damage of the property to a sum of Rs.6,000/16) At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract here Section 147 of the Act runs as follows: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-

¶68

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer;^or

¶69

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2),-

¶70

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by^him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out^ofthe use of the vehicle in a public place;

¶71

¶72

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out^ofthe use of the vehicle in a public place:

¶73

It is to be noted that according to Section 147(2), a policy of insurance referred to in sub section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:-

¶74

(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred;

¶75

(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:

¶76

A perusal of the above provision reveals that insofar as the compensation in respect of a third party liability regarding the death or bodily injury is concerned, there was^{norestriction} at all, but insofar as the damage to the third party properties^is concerned, the limit is Rs.6,000/-.

¶77

As seen from the order of the Tribunal though the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was^duetorash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, when a contention was canvassed by the insurance company i.e., the appellant that its liability in view of Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act is only Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal^didnot appreciate the contention properly in the considered^viewofthis

¶78

¶79

Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant the vehicle of the petitioner was supposed to be insured with insurance company. There was no pleading at all from the part of the petitioner as to whether his vehicle was insured with any insurance company so as to get compensation under the head of damage to own vehicle. Thus, if the vehicle^of the petitioner was insured with the insurance company, there would have been an occasion for the petitioner to claim compensation towards the damages to the own vehicle. Pleadings were silent in this regard. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to plead necessary things in this regard in the considered view of this Court.

¶80

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and looking into the terms and conditions in Ex.B.l policy which is in tune with Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act, this^Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal without answering the contention of the insurance company in proper perspective^was inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. There were no findings from the Tribunal as to how Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act can be circumvented. In my^considered view, in view of Ex.B.l policy and Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation to the

¶81

¶82

damages of his own vehicle being a third party for^morethan Rs.6,000/- against appellant.

¶83

be noted that though the petitioner had 20) It is to every right to claim compensation from the original owner, but to whether he made any claim his pleadings were silent as to reimburse the damages before his insurance company so as which he sustained i.e., to his own vehicle. It is^acasewhere there was no proper evidence let in by the petitioner as evident from the order of the Tribunal by examining the person who assessed the damage i.e., the Surveyor. As rightly^heldbythe Tribunal, the petitioner did not prove the damages^byexamining However, the Tribunal on guess work, awarded a any Surveyor sum of Rs.50,000/- contrary to Section 147(2)(b) of MV Act.

¶84

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim^morethan Rs.6,000/- as against the insurance company as he was no other than the third party whose property was damaged in view of restriction under Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act. Even the facts was not entitled to claim more than petitioner on Rs.6,000/- and he failed to prove the damages which^heclaimed by examining the Surveyor, etc. The case of the petitioner was not at ail clear with true facts as regards as to whether he

¶85

¶86

insured his vehicle with the insurance company so as to get compensation towards damages to own vehicle.

¶87

Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that even it is not possible to make^adirection to the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the difference amount of the compensation to the petitioner for want^ofproper pleadings and evidence. Hence, the only course left^opentothe Court is that modifying the award to a sum of Rs.6,000/-^instead of Rs.50,000/- directing that the amount is to be paid by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the claim. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.

¶88

In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part modifying the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to that of Rs.6,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3, but under the circumstances, without costs.

¶89

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if^any.

¶90

¶91

shall stand closed.

¶92

SD/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f\l^ SECTION OFFICER

¶93

1 Additional Ditrict

¶94

onicc to s;r>* Coiil o^ SS'5t^pa?ch®&e?cour. records,

¶95

Three CD Copies

TK sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/02/2024

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.1473 of 2016

¶101

6 Copies l6lsl2J+ D6I-

¶102

ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART WITHOUT COSTS

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. B.Y. Ramaiah and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. B.Y. Ramaiah and 2 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

A.P.S.R.T.C., and Another Vs Mallik Rekhi and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Rally Sai Likith Bharadwaj

Katta Kanaka Durga at Katta Durgamma Vs Nuthalapati Triveni

The Apsrtc, Vs Gunnam Venkata Lakshmi Died as per Lr

United India Insurance Company Vs Kovvali Kusuma Kumari and 2 Ors.

Smt. Shaik Jebunnisa Begum and 3 Others Vs K.Ravi Kumar and 2 Others