M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Thummala Ganga Raju

VARDINEEDI RAMESH, S/O.SATYANARAYANA, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-58, PULLA VILLAGE, BHIMADOLE MANDAL, WESTGODAVARI DISTRICT, DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO.AP 31 U 3208 AND AP 37 KT 2684.

¶14

VARDINEEDI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. SREERAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-58, PULLAVILLAGE, BHIMADOLE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 31 U 3208 AND AP 37 T 2684.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toaggrieved by the judgment and decree in MVOP No. 370 of

¶17

2

¶18

2013 dated 20.11.2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru,

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 45 days in filing the Appeal and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the order and decree dated 20.11.2018 in MVOP.No. 370 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶24

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.A VEERASWAMY

¶27

2.GANDHAM SR PRASAD

¶28

3

¶29

The Court made the following judgment:

¶30

The present appeal is filed by M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dated 20.11.2018 in MVOP No.370 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 08.12.2012, in which the offending tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP31U3208 and AP37T2684 were involved. After thread bare enquiry, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- towards compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the same jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶31

Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.

¶32

Perused the record.

¶33

The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the offending tractor and trailer were not insured with it. Yet another ground on which the present appeal is filed that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. In this

¶34

4

¶35

context, it is pertinent to note that both the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant do not merit consideration, inasmuch as, as can be seen from the record, especially the cross-examination of RW.1, who was the administrative officer of the appellant insurance company, had categorically admitted that both the tractor and trailer were validly insured with the appellant, and the policies were marked as Exs.B1 & B2. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. The other ground that was raised that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid license at the time of accident. In this regard, as can be seen from the record that, RW.2 had categorically admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license and the driving license extract was marked as Ex.B3. Further, RW.1 has also admitted that the tractor and trailer fall under the category of Light Motor Vehicles. In that view of the matter, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the driver had no valid license and that the tractor and trailer do not come under the category of Light Motor Vehicle cannot be countenanced, and the same is rejected. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge does not warrant interference by this Court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

¶36

The appellant is directed to pay compensation together with interest as directed by the Tribunal within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶37

5

¶38

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

¶41

Dt.06.03.2026 DSB

¶42

6