Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kankanala Vijaya Grace

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Dec 2024MACMA/371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an insurance company against a compensation order in a fatal accident case. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of driver negligence and dismissed the appeal, upholding the award of Rs. 20,86,619 to the claimants' dependents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 371 OF 2019

¶6

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated 16.08.2018 in M.V.O.P. No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court) Prakasam at Ongole.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, First Floor, Vijaya Complex, Dharavari Garden, Ward No.3, Station Road, Ongole-523 001

¶9

...Appellant/Respondent No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

Kankanala Vijaya Grace, W/o. Prasad Babu, Aged 40 years. Employee., resident of S.C.Colony, Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District

¶12

Kankanala Priskilla, D/o. Prasad Babu, Aged 17 years, Student. (Being minor represented by her mother is Respondent) resident of S.C.Colony, Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam^District

¶13

...Respondents/Claim Petitioners

¶14

Kanugula Hanumantha Rao, S/o Krishna, Hindu, Driver, aged 35 years. R/o Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole, Prakasam District. Driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-27-X-0714 and 0713,

¶15

Kanugula Venkatarayalu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, R/o D.No.35-3-87, Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-27-X-0714 and 0713.

¶16

Kankanala Vijaysekhar Babu, S/o. Prasad Babu, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Physiotherapist, Kavali Town, Nellore District.

¶17

Nuthalapati Madhuri, W/o Irmia Aged 27 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District

¶18

Kotapuri Rupa, W/o Deepak Kumar, Hindu, aged 25 years. Housewife, R/o Chennareddy Nagar, Amberpeta, Hyderabad.

¶19

...Respondents/Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K Bhagat Singh representing

¶21

Smt. A Jayanthi

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri M Sai Teja representing

¶23

Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri

¶24

Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶27

M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2019

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

This appeal is filed against the order dated 16.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant is the insurer of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27 X 0714 & 0713 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the^wifeand children of the deceased (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are the driver and^ownerof the said crime vehicle. The Respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein^arethe children of first wife of deceased, respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that; i) On 25.01.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased started from Ammanabrolu Village to Uppugunduru Village on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 27 AL 9435 to meet the Christian Pastor. At

¶30

¶31

about 7.00 p.m. while he was crossing Nagalla Vagu Chapta, at that time, he observed one lorry was coming in opposite direction, then in order to avoid accident, he turned the motorcycle towards the left side, as a result, the motorcycle touched the hook of the rear side of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27 X 0714 & 0713 respectively, which was parked negligently in the middle of the road, due to which, the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot,

¶32

ii) Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶33

The Respondent No.2/owner of tractor and trailer, filed counter which was adopted by respondent No.1, denying the material averments in the petition and sought the petitioners^to prove the age, avocation, and income of the deceased^andalso the manner of the accident. It is further averred in the written statement that there is no negligence on the part of^thetractor driver and the accident took place due to the negligence^ofthe

¶34

¶35

deceased who drove the motorcycle in a zig-zag manner^and caused the accident. It is further averred in the counter that the 1 respondent is having valid and effective driving Ncense^andthe vehicle got valid registration and insurance policy,^whichare in force, at the time of accident, hence 3'^^ respondent/insurance company is alone liable to pay the compensation, if any. The claim of compensation is excessive and abnormal and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed written statement denying the material averments in the petition and sought the petitioners to prove the age, avocation,^andincomeof the deceased and also the manner of the accident. It is further averred in the written statement that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased and he himself caused the accident in his own attempt by turning the vehicle^toavoidthe accident, hence no liability can be fixed on this respondent,^hence the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties to this petition, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The 1®’ respondent driver is not having valid and effective driving license and further the information about the accident is not reported by the^insured in

¶36

¶37

collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause^loss to this respondent/company and moreover there is no valid policy^tothe crime vehicle, hence R3/lnsurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶38

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

¶39

Whether the deceased Kankanala Prasad Babu died in the road accident that occurred on 25.01.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 27 X 0713 by respondent No.1 or due to own attempt of the deceased by turning to unsolicited direction to escape from his anticipated accident? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and driver of the motorcycle? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?

¶40

During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on^behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got^marked Exs.AI to A6. On behalf of the Respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.BI & B2 and Ex.XI.

¶41

¶42

■ fS

¶43

On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that the petitioner^Nos.1 and 2 and Respondent Nos.4 to 6 therein are entitled for the compensation of Rs.20,86,619/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein. 10. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 11. Heard Sri K. Bhagat Singh, learned counsel representing Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appeilant/lnsurer and Sri M. Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants. 12. Now, the only point that arises for determination ISi: “Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 13. POlfTT; It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident and that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶44

¶45

The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurer is that there is a clear negligence on the part of the deceased who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent and zig-zag manner and therefore, the insurance company^isnot liable to pay any compensation.

¶46

For which, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the evidence of PW.2- Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed the charge sheet covered under Ex.A2 and Ex.AI F.I.R, clearly shows that the tractor and trailer bearing^Nos.AP27X 0714 and 0713, respectively, were negligently parked^and that there was no rash or negligent driving on the part^{ofthedeceased} while driving the motorcycle in question.

¶47

This Court perused the material on record. Admittedly, Ex.B2 is a comprehensive policy and it covers 3'"'^ party risk also. 17. In the present case, on 25.01.2013 at about 6.00 p.m.,^the deceased (Kankanala Prasad Babu) started from Ammanabrolu Village to Uppugunduru Village on his motorcycle bearing^No.AP 27 AL 9435 to meet the Christian Pastor and at about 7.00 p.m. while he was crossing Nagalla Vagu Chapta, at that^time, he noticed one lorry was coming in opposite direction,^andinorderto avert the accident, he turned the motorcycle towards^theleftside

¶48

¶49

as a result, the motorcycle touched the hook of the rear side of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 27 X 0714 & 0713 respectively, which was parked negligently in the middle of the road, due to which, the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 18. The evidence of PW.2, the Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet covered under Ex.A2 further states that after registering a case in Crime No. 11 of 2013, and after examining the witnesses by drawing the rough sketch and found^thetractor and trailer was situated in the middle of the road without any precautions. He further testifies the driver of the tractor and trailer had not switched on the parking lights or putting any^stones or placing guard near the vehicle. He further testifies that the accident occurred because the tractor driver had stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road without taking minimum precautions and the deceased dashed the stationed vehicle and sustained injuries and later succumbed to injuries. 19. So, from the above evidence, it can safely be presumed that the negligence was happened only the driver of^thetractor not on the rider of the motorcycle (deceased) and admittedly,^the petitioners/claimants are the third parties.

¶50

¶51

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,^there is no flaw in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal^andthe Tribunal has discussed every point in detail and came to the right conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the^driverofthe tractor and trailer, but not the deceased. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of PW.2 and Exs.M and A2, all of which show that there is no merit in this appeal. Hence, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand^vacated.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any,^shall stand closed.

¶55

Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ Sr ' SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court)

¶58

Ongole, Prakasam District, (with records if any)

¶59

OneCCto Smt. A Jayanthi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶62

Three CD Copies

SAM sree

^ .

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/12/2024

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.371 of 2019

SP
* 2 7 MAR 2025 S|
a C9
Current beciion . ^

¶70

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶72

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶75

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 371 OF 2019

¶76

Between:

¶77

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, First Floor, Vijaya Complex, Dharavari Garden, Ward No.3, Station Road, Ongole-523 001

¶78

...Appellant/RespondentNo.3

¶79

AND

¶80

Kankanala Vijaya Grace, W/o. Prasad Babu, Aged 40 years. Employee., resident of S.C.Colony, Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District

¶81

Kankanala Priskilla, D/o. Prasad Babu, Aged 17 years. Student. (Being minor represented by her mother is Respondent) resident of S.C.Colony, Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam^District

¶82

...Respondents/Claim Petitioners

¶83

Kanugula Hanumantha Rao, S/o Krishna, Hindu, Driver, aged 35 years, R/o Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole, Prakasam District. Driver^ofTractorand Trailer bearing No.AP-27-X-0714 and 0713,

¶84

Kanugula Venkatarayalu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu R/o D.No.35-3-87,

¶85

Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-27-X-0714 and 0713.

¶86

Kankanala Vijaysekhar Babu, S/o. Prasad Babu, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Physiotherapist, Kavali Town, Nellore District.

¶87

Nuthalapati Madhuri, W/o Irmia Aged 27 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District

¶88

Kotapuri Rupa, W/o Deepak Kumar, Hindu, aged 25 years. Housewife, R/o ChennareddyNagar, Amberpeta, Hyderabad.

¶89

...Respondents/ Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6

¶90

¶91

Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Bhagat Singh representing Smt. A Jayanthi, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri M Sai Teja representing Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri for the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 , and none appeared for other respondents.

¶92

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶93

That the Appeal is be and hereby Dismissed.

¶94

That there shall be no order as to costs.

¶95

To,

¶96

//TRUE COPY//

¶97

Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r

¶98

SECTION OFFICER

¶99

The Chairman Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal (Principal District Court) Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶100

Three CD Copies

Stu sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/12/2024

DECREE

MACMA.No.371 of 2019

2 7 MAR 2025
09
. Current section ★><jf/

¶107

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kankanala Vijaya Grace

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kankanala Vijaya Grace

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

Nabin Sahu Vs M/s.Sri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., and another

Chilakapati Ramchand Vs the State of A.P. & Another

Sri Katragadda Sreekanth Vs Katragadda Premalatha & 2 Others

Kumari Sadanandam Vs the State of A.P.

National Insurance Company Ltd., Ananthapur Dist Vs Gongadi Thataiah, Ananthapur Dist & 4 Others

Ramavathi Balu, Guntur Dist Vs v Sreenu Naik, Guntur Dist & 2 Others