Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Bommu Vakalamma

BOMMU NAGA M O HAN PITCHESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE VEERA VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, 4 YEARS, STUDENT. (PETITIONERS 2 T O 4 BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHERNATURAL GUARD I AN/PETITIONER NO.1 - BOMMU V A KALAMMA).

¶17

BOMMU RATNA M , W/O. PITCHAIAH, HINDU, 76 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE. (A L L ARE R/O. D.NO. 12-289, BOM M AVARIPALEM, RAMANAGARAM VILLAGE, H/O. LAKSHMIPUR A M VILLAGE, CHALLAPALLI MA N DAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT).

¶18

MUTHCU SUBBA RAO, S/O. BHASKARA RAO, 39 Y E ARS, HINDU, R/O. RAMANA G ARAM, H/O. LAKSHMIPURA M VILLAGE, CHALLAPALLI M A NDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF

¶19

2

¶20

TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP 25 T 0477 AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 16 R 5120).

¶21

PARISE SIVA NAGA RAJU, S/O. RAGHU RAMAIAH, 38 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. RAMANGARAM, H/O. LAKSHMIPURAM VILLAGE, CHALLAPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP 25 T 0477 AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 16 R 5120).

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶24

1.D RAVI KIRAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

¶27

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶28

The Appellant/ Insurance Company filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 03.03.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.602 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.11,65,000/- to the Respondents/ Claimants, as against the claim of 15,00,000/- for the death of one Mr. Bommu Veera Venkateswara Rao, (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 23.07.2018.

¶29

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶30

The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶31

On 23.07.2018, the deceased along with others went to coolie work in

¶32

the tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 and its Trailer bearing No. AP 16 R 5120

¶33

3

¶34

of Respondent No.2. They reached Chintalamada Harizanawada Road, the Respondent No.1 being driver of crime vehicle i.e tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 and its Trailer bearing No. AP 16 R 5120 drove the same in a rashand negligent manner with high speed and lost his control over the same, as a result the tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 and its Trailer bearing No. AP 16 R 5120 turned turtle on the road margin and the trailer fell over the deceased and the other two workers sustained grievous severe bleeding injuries. On the report of the Claimant No.1, the Challapalli Police registered a case in Crime No. 128 of 2018 as against the driver of the tractor and trailer. Therefore, the Claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the Respondents.

¶35

Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte .

¶36

Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that the crime vehicle i.e tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 and its Trailer bearing No. AP 16 R 5120 has a seating capacity of one as per the certificate of registration and permit, but on the date of accident the said trailer was proceeding with three passengers contrary to the permit and R.C and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the driver of the crime vehicle has not valid driving license as on the date of accident. The Respondent No.2 owner of the crime tractor committed breach of policy terms and conditions by allowing an unauthorized person without driving license, liability cannot be fasten on the Respondent No.3.

¶37

4

¶38

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for

¶39

trial:

¶40

“1. Whether the deceased Bommu Veera Venkateswara Rao @ China Subba Rao died due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1 being the driver of tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 and trailer bearing No. AP 16 R 5120?

¶41

2. Whether the 1^st respondent is having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident?

¶42

3. Whether the compensation and the interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive?

¶43

4. Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the death of the deceased?

¶44

5. To what relief petitioners are entitled?”

¶45

On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.3/Insurance Company, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked through official witnesses.

¶46

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.11,65,000/with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondent No.3 to deposit the said amount within a month from the date of the order.

¶47

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/ Claimant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to observed that the insured vehicle

¶48

5

¶49

is a tractor-cum- trailer which has no seating capacity except for driver, but admittedly at the time of accident there were two persons, who are travelling including the deceased as unauthorized passengers and therefore it is an act of willful breach on the part of the insured and therefore his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal erroneously passed the liability against the Appellant/ Insurance Company, despite the fact that the policy issued to the insured by the Appellant is liability/ Act policy which covers the risk of third parties alone, whereas the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, whose risk was not covered under the policy. Therefore, requested this Court to allow the Appeal by dismissing the Award passed by the Tribunal.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

Now the point for consideration is:

¶52

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶53

POINT:

¶54

On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, the Claimant No.1, who is wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW-1 and also got examined PW-2, who is an eye witness to the said accident, who categorically deposed that on the date of accident i.e on 23.07.2018 he along with one Peruboina Rambabu and deceased went to coolie work for transportation of Palmyra leaves on the tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 and its Trailer

¶55

6

¶56

bearing No. AP 16 R 5120 of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, the tractor turned turtle and trailer of the tractor fell over them, himself, Peruboina Rambabu sustained grievous bleeding injuries and the deceased died on the spot due to chest injuries and other injuries, coupled with Ex.A5 copy of Charge Sheet, which is in fact filed by the Police against the driver of the tractor after due investigation under Section 304-A, 337, 338 of IPC and Ex.X1 Memo filed along with photograph of the tractor with correct number of tractor and as well as considering the Ex.B1 Policy, which in fact was in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal held that the Respondent No.3 established that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the Respondent No.1 without having valid driving license to ply the vehicle. As such, the Tribunal directed the Appellant/ Insurance Company to deposit the compensation and then recover from the owner.

¶57

On behalf of the Respondent No.3 examined the Senior Assistant in R.T.O, Machilipatnam as RW-3, who deposed that there is no seating capacity to the trailer as per Ex.X4 Registration Certificate of the trailer and no person is permitted to travel in the trailer. RW-3 further deposed that there is no registration certificate for the tractor bearing No. AP 25 T 0477 in their data base on search. However, there is registration certificate for the trailer bearing No. AP 16 R 5120. The Tribunal relying upon the Judgment in “Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mehaboob Ali Khan and Others”¹ wherein

¶58

1 2018 ACJ 33

¶59

7

¶60

it was held that non possession of fitness certificate and permit do not amount to violation of terms and conditions of policy and the decision in “National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and Others”² , wherein it was held that the when insurer is able to prove breach on the part of insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of valid driving license by the driver, directed that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company i.e Respondent No.3 to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal and then recover the same from the owner of the Tractor without initiating separate proceedings against him, which in the opinion of this Court is in right perspective and well reasoned.

¶61

In the instant case, it is important to consider the fact that as per the evidence of RWs-1 to 3, both the Tractor and Trailer was insured separately. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability by paying compensation. As such, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for ordering Respondent No.3 to deposit the compensation amount initially and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, do not need interference.

¶62

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the case of the Claimants is that the deceased was doing coolie work and also doing milk-carrying business besides doing carpenter work and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof to that extent, the Tribunal

¶63

2 2004 ACJ 1

¶64

8

¶65

considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 has fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month. As there are 5 dependants, 1/5^th income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personal expenses and after deducting the same, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 57,600/- (Rs. 72,000/- 14,400/- i.e 1/5^th ). As per Ex.A2 and A3 i.e Postmortem Report and Inquest Report, the age of the deceased shown as 40 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ as per “Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”³ . If the same is considered the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 8,64,000/- i.e (Rs. 57,600/- x 15).

¶66

The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads viz., Rs. 2,16,000/- towards loss of dependency; Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs. 11,65,000/-.

¶67

It is curious to note that on perusal of the Award, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the Claimant No.1 alone. In the instant case, there are Claimants 2 to 5, who are minor children and mother of the deceased. As per Sarla Verma’s case, even Claimants No. 2 to 5 are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. If the same is considered the loss consortium would be come to Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 4). Therefore, this Court granted loss of consortium to other

¶68

3 2009 ACJ 1298

¶69

9

¶70

Claimants No. 2 to 5 also i.e Rs. 1,60,000/-, apart from Rs. 40,000/-, which

¶71

already granted by the Tribunal to the Claimant No.1.

¶72

18. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and

¶73

the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows:

¶74

S.No.	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now enhanced by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	8,64,000/-	8,64,000/-
2.	Future prospects	2,16,000/-	2,16,000/-
3.	Loss of consortium	40,000/-	1,60,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	25,000/-	25,000/-
5.	Funeral expenses	20,000/-	20,000/-
	Total	11,65,000/-	12,85,000/-

¶75

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 12,85,000/- from Rs. 11,65,000/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the Claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶77

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶78

Date: 06.04.2026 KK

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, v. Bommu Vakalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, v. Bommu Vakalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gottimukkala Kiran Babu Vs the Union of India

The Official Liquidator, Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Kotakondla Rathna Vs Rengichetty Manohar

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kongana Bhavani

Manjula Narayana Vs Pathan Shahida