Kotepalli Sambasiva Rao Vs Vadlamudi Vikram & Anor.

The injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 22.03.2005 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.413 of 1999.

¶26

Heard arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶27

The following facts are required to be noticed:

¶28

On 11.11.1997 at about 10:30 P.M. a lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-V-4046 proceeding from Eluru to Hyderabad with a load of fish turned turtle near Chandrala Village, N.S.P. Canal and Sri Katepalli Sambasiva Rao suffered

¶29

3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶30

grievous injuries. Stating that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram is the owner of the offending vehicle and National Insurance Company Limited insured the offending vehicle, he levied a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and filed O.P.No.413 of 1999. Respondent No.1 therein Sri Vadlamudi Vikram did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company/respondent No.2 therein raised a contest stating that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram/respondent No.1 was not owner of the offending vehicle. It further raised contention that the Claims Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as it is a case of own damage and sought dismissal of the claim.

¶31

The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues:

¶32

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-V4046 driven by the petitioner himself?

¶33

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents?

¶34

1. To what relief?

¶35

4

¶36

M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶37

PWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked for

¶38

claimant/injured. RWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked for respondent No.2-insurance company.

¶39

The learned Claims Tribunal found that the claimant injured sustained serious injuries and had undertaken long medical treatment, and he was subjected to four surgeries. Towards pain and suffering, loss of actual earnings, extra nourishment and attendant charges, medical expenses, transportation to hospital and permanent disability it found Rs.98,945/as just compensation. After recording detailed reasons and after consideration of precedent, it observed that the claimant was not entitled to seek compensation, and the insurance company was not liable. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim petition.

¶40

Assailing the same, the injured claimant preferred this appeal.

¶41

Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy the learned counsel contends that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the law and it ought to have granted compensation and cited National

¶42

5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶43

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veldi Chandra Sekhar¹ , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meenaben Mahendrabhai Chavda² and Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Atika Devi³ .

¶44

Against it, Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the grievance of the appellant is misplaced and in the cases of own damage the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the impugned award is right on law in the context of the facts available on record and therefore, this appeal may be dismissed.

¶45

The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is:

¶46

Whether the owner-cum-driver of a vehicle is

¶47

entitled to claim damages before the Claims Tribunal for his own fault?

¶48

1 2012 ACJ 1153 (A.P.)

¶49

2 2023 ACJ 949 (Gujarat)

¶50

3 2023 ACJ 1575 (Jharkhand)

¶51

6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶52

POINT:

¶53

From the oral and documentary evidence, the following facts are not in dispute:

¶54

A lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-V-4046 was involved in an accident and the appellant/claimant- Sri K.Sambasiva Rao sustained grievous injuries in that accident. At the material point of time there was in force Ex.B.1-insurance policy.

¶55

This appellant filed the claim petition stating that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram was the owner of the offending lorry. As against that the insurance company contended that the claimant/appellant-Sri K.Sambasiva Rao himself was the owner of the offending lorry at the material point of time. Referring to the evidence of the claimant, who testified before the Claims Tribunal as PW.1, it was observed by the Claims Tribunal that PW.1 himself admitted that at the material point of time he was the owner of the offending lorry. RW.2 produced Ex.X.2 which is a copy of B-register maintained by the Road Transport Authority. From that the Claims Tribunal observed that till 10.08.1998 the offending lorry stood registered in the name of the injured

¶56

M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶57

claimant- Sri K.Sambasiva Rao and it was on 11.08.1998 he transferred it in favour of Sri B.Anand Shyam. The subject matter accident occurred on 11.11.1997. Thus, by the time of the accident the injured claimant himself was the owner of the offending vehicle. Though he contended that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram/respondent No.1 was the owner of the offending vehicle at the material point of time, he did not adduce any evidence in support of it. Even if it is assumed that the appellant had sold out his vehicle to Sri Vadlamudi Vikram since he still continues to be the registered owner in the records of RTA in such circumstances the law is that he alone shall be considered as the owner and not Sri Vadlamudi Vikram⁴ . Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the injured claimant was the owner of the offending vehicle at the material point of time is a finding arrived at on facts and does not require any interference.

¶58

In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, at the outset, it is urged that the Claims Tribunal should have at least passed its award as against respondent No.1- Sri Vadlamudi Vikram. This is

¶59

4 Pushpa @ Leela v. Shakuntala 2011 (1) Supreme 193 SC

¶60

8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶61

a meritless submission and a submission which is against the facts and evidence on record.

¶62

The case set out in the claim petition by this appellant was that on 11.11.1997 he himself was driving the offending lorry and it turned turtle, and he sustained injuries. It is crystal clear that there was no other vehicle involved in this accident. Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and Ex.A.6-charge sheet were considered by the Claims Tribunal. After considering such documents and the oral evidence it positively recorded a finding that at the material point of time the accident occurred only because of the rash or negligent driving of the claimant himself.

¶63

The upshot of the above discussion shows that as on the date of accident this appellant was the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.

¶64

Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant contends that even in such cases the injured appellant is entitled to seek compensation from the insurance company. According to the learned counsel the appellant/claimant may be considered as the driver at the material point of time and grant compensation

¶65

9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶66

though he happens to be the owner also. Strength for these contentions is sought to be derived from the rulings the learned counsel cited. In Veldi Chandra Sekhar ’s case⁵ , the claimant was the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. It was a case of death. The insurance policy therein covered the risk of the owner. In such circumstances compensation was awarded. Meenaben Mahendrabhai Chavda ’s case⁶ - that was a case where the insurance policy covered the risk of the driver as additional premium was paid. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act was considered and accordingly compensation was awarded. In Atika Devi ’s case⁷ , the facts are totally different. There the original owner was standing by the side of the road. His driver while driving the tractor dashed him and caused injuries. The claim was made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was in the above referred circumstances the owner who died in the accident was considered as a third party since he was not in the offending vehicle.

¶67

5 supra 1

¶68

6 supra 2

¶69

10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶70

16. Having bestowed keen attention on the above referred

¶71

rulings and the submissions of the learned counsel one is required to notice the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik⁸ . That was a case of the offending vehicle being driven by owner-cum-driver met with an accident resulting in the death of the driver-cum-owner. The vehicle was covered by insurance policy. In paragraph No.7, their Lordships recorded……… “the deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Referring to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, their Lordships in Oriental Insurance Co.

¶72

7 supra 3

¶73

8 (2018) 9 SCC 801

¶74

11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶75

Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha⁹ held that the risk of death or bodily injury in terms of Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act covers a risk of a third party only. If there was additional premium paid in respect of the risk of death or bodily injury of the owner then to that extent the insurance company could be directed to pay compensation.

¶76

In the case at hand, in paragraph No.22 of the impugned award the Claims Tribunal recorded a clear finding that as per Ex.A.4-insurance policy (equivalent to Ex.B.1) it has not covered the risk of the owner. The undisputed facts of the present case disclosed the owner driving the vehicle. Therefore, his claim for compensation before the Claims Tribunal is misplaced as he failed to cover his own risk. He is not a third party and he being the tort-feasor his indemnifier/insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability since the liability of insurance company arises only in the event of liability of the insured. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of all merits. Hence, the point is answered against the appellant.

¶77

9 (2007) 9 SCC 263

¶78

12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶79

In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The award dated 22.03.2005 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru in O.P.No.413 of 1999 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

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

¶81

________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

¶82

Date: 04.03.2025 Ivd

¶83

13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012

¶84

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

¶85

M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012