Akula Lakshmi Sujatha Vs Shaik Rahamatullah… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Akula Lakshmi Sujatha Vs Shaik Rahamatullah… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: the impugned award was set aside to the extent of the apportionment of liability and modified, directing both respondents to pay the whole compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- to the claimant with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, jointly and severally; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the car (the claimant's husband) was also responsible for the accident and in apportioning the liability equally between the two vehicles on the ground of contributory negligence. +1 more

Court's answer

In the absence of any evidence adduced by the respondents, the liability for the accident cannot be apportioned equally between the drivers merely because two vehicles travelling in opposite directions collided; the Tribunal accordingly erred in fixing contributory negligence on the driver of the car.

Ratio / Principle

Liability for causing an accident must be decided on the evidence on record alone and not on general possibilities, except where the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies.

Key takeaways

The contesting respondent took no steps to examine the driver of the lorry to rebut rash and negligent driving or to fix responsibility on the car driver; the claimant's uncontradicted oral evidence, corroborated by documents, had to be accepted and considered independently of the position and status of the claimant's husband (a police officer) who drove the car.ratio¶66
F.I.R. and charge sheet alone cannot determine that the driver of the lorry alone was responsible for causing the accident.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MOTOR ACCIDENTS - APPEAL UNDER S.173 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE / APPORTIONMENT - In a collision between a car and a lorry coming in opposite directions, the Tribunal held both drivers negligent, apportioned liability in equal halves and paid the claimant only half of the assessed compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-, i.e., Rs.1,05,000/- - HELD: (i) in the absence of any evidence from the respondents, liability cannot be equally apportioned merely because two vehicles travelling in opposite directions collided; (ii) liability in causing an accident must be decided on the evidence on record alone and not on general possibilities, except where the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' applies; (iii) the contesting insurer took no steps to examine the driver of the lorry and failed to dislodge the claimant's uncontradicted oral evidence corroborated by documents, which had to be considered independently of the fact that the car driver was the claimant's husband, a police officer; (iv) F.I.R. and charge sheet alone cannot determine that the driver of the lorry alone was responsible; (v) the Tribunal therefore committed error in holding the driver of the car also responsible - QUANTUM: the findings of the Tribunal on quantum call for no interference - RESULT: appeal allowed in part; apportionment set aside; both respondents (lorry owner and insurer) directed to pay the whole compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, jointly and severally.

APHC010101932009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the Tenth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twent y Five

Present

The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

Between:

1.Akula Lakshmi Sujath a , D/o.Vasantha Rao, aged 40 years, R/o Flat No.14, Venkatesh Towers, 7^th line, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur.

… Appellant.

and

1.Shaik Rahamatullah S /o. Khasim, R/o 09-62-74/B, Kothapet, Vijayawada (owner of lorry No.ABP-6669).

2.The Oriental Insuranc e Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Main Road, Kothapet, Guntur.

...Respondents

Counsel for the appellant:

1.Anand Babu Dron a dula

Counsel for the respondents

1.Gudi Srinivasu

The Court made the following:

2

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, challenging the award and the decree dated 27.09.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.1316 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur granting compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, as against the claim of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

02. The case of the claimant is briefly, as follows:

This appeal was preferred by the claimant. The case of the claimant is that on 19.04.2005, when she was going in Maruthi car bearing No.AP 7S 2195 along with others, a lorry bearing No.ABP 6669, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car in the opposite direction. As a result, she suffered injuries and fracture, besides dislocation of left hip and right leg. She was hospitalized. She spent Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment and also suffered permanent disability. She was a practicing advocate, aged about 36 years as on the date of accident and had an income of Rs.1,91,460 during the relevant financial years.

The 1^st respondent / insured of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent / insurer filed written statement denying the liability and averments made by the claimant.

On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as PW1 and also examined Dr.K.Ratna Babu, P.Subramanyam and B.Srinivasa Rao as PWs 2 to 4. She marked Exs.A1 to A18 and Ex.X1 and X2.

3

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate

Ex.A4: Discharge summary

ExA5: Hospital bills (3) Rs.14,640/-

Ex.A6: Cash receipts (4) Rs.13,400/-

Ex.A7: Cash receipts (6) Rs.8,458.75/-

Ex.A8: Cash receipts (2) Rs.1,400/-

Ex.A9: Cash Bills (7) Rs.1,900/-

Ex.A10: Bunch of Medical Bills (46) Rs.9,317/-

Ex.A11: Receipt by K.Subba Rao Rs.2,500/-

Ex.A12: Saral form 2002-03

Ex.A13: Saral form 2003-04

Ex.A14: Saral form 2004-05

Ex.A15: Enrollment Certificate

Ex.A16: X-ray films (11)

Ex.A17: Sale deed

Ex.A18: Sale deed.

Ex.X1: Case sheet

Ex.X2: Income tax returns of PW1 (1316/05)

4

BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

No evidence, either documentary or oral was lead by the 2^nd respondent.

The Tribunal observed that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the drivers of both the car and the lorry and thus apportioned the amount of compensation in equal halves. Since the claim petition was filed only against the owner and the insurer of the lorry alone, award was passed against them only by apportioning the liability as aforesaid. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal granted Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses on consideration of medical bills of Rs.51,615/- filed in evidence. As the income of the claimant was also shown from agriculture, the Tribunal found the physical disability will not reduce her income from agriculture. The doctor deposed that the claimant has painful limitation of left hip and also right knee joint and assessed the disability at 20 percent; further that the said condition will not affect the occupational income, however, she may have to be put with inconvenience and may lead to degeneration of the joint. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,00,000/- to compensate the physical disability. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant was assessed at Rs.2,10,000/-. However, as aforesaid, since the liability was apportioned, she was granted compensation of Rs.1,05,000/etc., payable by the respondents with joint and several liability. Aggrieved by the decree and the award, this appeal was preferred on ground of granting less compensation and also for apportioning the liability on account of contributory negligence.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the car shall also be responsible for

5

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

the accident though there was no evidence on the part of the respondents and that the Tribunal was under the assumption and presumption in holding that the driver of the car was also responsible for the accident. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded is low and that the physical disability has greatly reduced her capacity to earn as much as before the accident.

Notice served to respondent No.1 was returned unserved with postal endorsement “No such addressee in this door number”.

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the Tribunal rightly noted that the driver of the car shall also be responsible in causing the accident. He further submitted that the Tribunal had considered facts of the case to arrive at just conclusion, because the claimant is an advocate and her husband is a police officer and was the driver of the car at the relevant time and merely because no case was registered against him, it may not be said that he was not responsible for the accident. It was also argued that the accident is a collision of two vehicles in the opposite direction and therefore, the Tribunal rightly apportioned the liability because of contribution to the cause of accident due to negligence of the drivers of both vehicles.

With regard to the quantum of compensation, he submitted that there is no need to interfere with it as the Tribunal fairly granted the amount payable by awarding amount more than required. He further submitted that the claimant is an advocate and there is no proof that she lost her earning capacity, and the agricultural income also would not be affected due to the kind of disability she suffered. He submitted that there is no need to interfere with the award.

6

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

Coming to the aspect of the rash and negligence of the drivers of the vehicles in causing the accident, the Tribunal exhaustively dealt with the evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible. Merely, because the driver of the car who is the husband of the claimant is a police officer, one should not develop suspicion of false accusation of the driver of the lorry alone as responsible for the accident. The presumption that as the driver of the car was a police officer, there was possibility of excluding him from the liability to commit the crime, cannot be drawn under mere suspicion. The evidence shall be considered independently and uninfluenced by his position and status of the claimant. No steps were taken by the contesting respondent to examine the driver of the lorry to deny the rash and negligence or to show that the driver of the car shall also be held responsible for cause of the accident. Of course, F.I.R. and charge sheet alone cannot determine that the driver of the lorry alone was responsible for causing the accident. But, the evidence of the eye witnesses examined before the Tribunal remained un-contraverted. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent further submitted except self serving the evidence of PW1, there is no other corroborative evidence of independent eye witness. This factor alone does not render the evidence of PW1 unbelievable without corroboration. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that no step was taken by the contesting respondent to examine the driver of the lorry as witness. Moreover, the evidence of the claimant is corroborated by the documentary evidence filed. Nothing was shown by the contesting respondent to disbelieve the evidence, both oral and documentary, of the claimant. Though the accident occurred due to collision in the opposite direction, in the absence of evidence from the respondents, the liability cannot be equally apportioned. Even in such case of the accident, there may be

7

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

contributory negligence of both sides or one party alone can cause accident due to rash and / or negligence. Therefore, in each case, the liability in causing the accident should be decided basing on the evidence on record alone and not by general possibilities, except where the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies.

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the driver of the car also has a duty to avert the accident even though the driver of the lorry was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. This argument cannot be accepted as it is not possible to avert an accident when the other party was rash or negligent in driving, because it all depends on the degree of rash and negligence in driving the vehicle. As such, in the present case it cannot be concluded that the driver of the car shall also be held responsible for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error in holding the driver of the car also responsible.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.

In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned award to the extent of apportioning the liability and consequently, modifying the award by directing both the respondents to pay whole amount of compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- to the claimant with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal with joint and several liability.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

8

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

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

________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

Date: 10.07.2025 GRL

9

166

BSB,J

M.A.C.M.A.No.3697 of 2009

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

M.A.C.M.A.No:3697 of 2009

Date: 10.07.2025 GRL

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award and decree dated 27.09.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.1316 of 2005 granting the claimant compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- (half of the assessed Rs.2,10,000/-) with interest at 7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs, against a claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on the footing of equal contributory negligence of the car and lorry drivers.¶23
Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur · 27.09.2008
Prior proceeding
Accident of 19.04.2005: the claimant, travelling in Maruthi car No.AP 7S 2195, was hit by lorry No.ABP 6669 driven in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction.¶25
Prior proceeding
The claimant suffered injuries and fracture with dislocation of left hip and right leg, was hospitalised, spent Rs.1,00,000/- on treatment and suffered permanent disability.¶25
Prior proceeding
The claimant was a practising advocate aged about 36 years on the date of the accident, with an income of Rs.1,91,460 in the relevant financial years.¶25
Prior proceeding
The claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.1316 of 2005 before the Guntur Tribunal claiming Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the lorry.¶23
Prior proceeding
The 1st respondent / insured owner of the lorry remained ex parte.¶26
Prior proceeding
The 2nd respondent / insurer filed a written statement denying liability and the claimant's averments.¶26
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal the claimant examined herself as PW1 with PWs 2 to 4 (including Dr.K.Ratna Babu) and marked Exs.A1 to A18 and Exs.X1 and X2.¶27
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal held that the drivers of both the car and the lorry were negligent and apportioned the compensation in equal halves; since the petition was laid only against the owner and insurer of the lorry, the award was passed against them alone.¶54
Prior proceeding
On quantum, the Tribunal granted Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses on the basis of medical bills of Rs.51,615/- proved in evidence.¶54
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards the claimant's physical disability.¶54
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.2,10,000/-.¶54
Prior proceeding
Owing to the equal apportionment of liability, the award was confined to Rs.1,05,000/- payable by the respondents jointly and severally.¶54