The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Merugu Srinivasa Rao

THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMP A NY LIMITED, REPRESENTED B Y ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNAT O RY, DIVIJA COMPLEX, D.NO. 5 2-1/1-1, RING ROAD, VETERIN A RY COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, AN D HRA PRADESH

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

MERUGU SRINIV A SA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMA RAO, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS. AGRIC U LTURE COOLIE, R/O. D.NO. 3-18 8 /A, MANTADA VILLAGE, PAMIDI M UKKALA MANDAL, KRISHNA DIS T RICT

¶13

ASILETI DEVA V A RA KUMAR, S/O. LATE BALA S W AMY, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF TATA A CE BEARING NO. AP16TW316 4 , R/O. D.NO. 6-338, 6TH WARD, SRILANKA COLONY, VUYYU R U, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Appeal filed under O rder 41 of CPC praying that the Hi g h Court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree a n d award dated 02.05.2024 passed in M VOP No.221 of 2021 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims T ribunal -Cum- XII Addl. District Judge at Vijayawada and dismiss the MVOP N o.221 of 2021 filed by the Respond e nt No.1 herein/ Claim Petitioner against the Appellant herein/ Respondent N o . 2 in the lower court and pass

¶16

2

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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 63 days in filing the above appeal against the proceedings dated 02.05.2024 passed in MVOP No.221 of 2021 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- XII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada and pass

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings dated 02.05.2024 passed in MVOP No.221 of 2021 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- XII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada including execution proceedings pending disposal of the appeal and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner/1st respondent to Withdraw the St amounts deposited by the respondent/appellant as directed by this Hon’ble Court in M.A.C.M.A. No.691 of 2024, dated 22.11.2024 and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶24

1.A JAYANTHI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 691 OF 2024

¶30

JUDGMENT:-

¶31

The Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company, who is Appellant herein filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 02.05.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.221 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty five thousand only) to the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 27.05.2010.

¶32

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

¶33

3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶34

On 27.05.2010, while the Petitioner and his father Merugu Rama Rao

¶35

started in the crime vehicle along with their bullocks in order to sell them, the father of the Petitioner Rama Rao sat on Cabin and the Petitioner sat in the body alone with bullocks, when they reached near Ice Factory, Ramanapudi Village on Pamarru –Gudivada Road, the Respondent No.1 being the drivercum-owner of the crime vehicle TATA Ace auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 3164 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, in order to avoid collusion with lorry coming in opposite direction, lost control over the steering and dashed against the left side stationed lorry. As a result of which,

¶36

4

¶37

the Petitioner sustained injuries all over his body. The Police, Gudivada Taluka Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 53 of 2010 under Section 338, 429 and 304-A of IPC.

¶38

Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 remained ex parte .

¶39

Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a Counter, opposing the claim petition, stating that the Respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. In fact, the Respondent No.1 i.e driver-cum owner of the crime vehicle had carried animals i.e two bullocks unauthorizedly on the crime vehicle, which was violation of the Road Transport Act Rules. The Petitioner himself contributed negligence by travelling in goods vehicle with cattle, thereby, Respondent No.1 driver-cum-owner violatered the terms of the police, hence the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶40

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

¶41

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent act of driver-R1 of TATA Ace bearing No. AP 16 TW 3164 and dashed against stationed lorry?

¶42

2. Whether the petition is bad for non impleding stationed lorry?

¶43

3. Whether 1^st respondent is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

¶44

4. Whether petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs, as prayed for?

¶45

5. To what relief?”

¶46

5

¶47

On behalf of the claimant, P.W-1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

¶48

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 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.2,55,000/with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondents No.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order.

¶49

Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry, who parked the lorry on the middle of the road without any indicators. If the stationed lorry was not parked on road, the accident could not have occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry. Since the injured was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle had carried two bullocks on the crime vehicle which was violation of Road Transport Act Rules. Therefore, the appellant/ insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶50

6

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Now the point for consideration is:

¶53

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶54

POINT:

¶55

Learned counsel for the Appellant argued with regard to limitation aspect that the accident occurred on 27.05.2010, whereas the claim petition filed on 24.05.2021 i.e after 10 years. Therefore, the claim petition is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of learned Madras High Court in “ Malaravan v. Praveen Travels Private Limited” in C.R.P. 2558 of 2023, dated 18.08.2023, wherein it was held as follows:-

¶56

“Motor Accident Claim Tribunals cannot dismiss claim petitions on the ground of Limitation and the Tribunals were statutorily mandated to commence the compensation proceedings immediately after receipt of First Information Reports from the police, without waiting for formal claim petitions and set aside order passed by Tribunal rejecting the claim filed by victim on the ground that, filed after six months of accident and directed the Tribunal to treat the claim petition as “Remainder” in the Tribunal to proceed with the grant of compensation, therefore, petition can be treated as “ and can be maintained”.

¶57

Further, it is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company that on the date of the accident, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry, who parked the lorry on the middle of the road without any indicators. It is further contended that the Respondent No.1 had no valid driving license at the time of accident and

¶58

7

¶59

that Tata Ace auto is goods vehicle, in which, the Petitioner is not expected to travel with cattle and same is against the Rules under Motor Vehicles Act, it amounts to gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The tribunal held that along with cattle and goods, owner can travel to safeguard the goods and same not amounts to violation.

¶60

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal relying on both oral and documentary evidence by the claimant has held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the Respondent.

¶61

Coming to the injuries sustained by the claimant as per Ex.A2 Wound Certificate, the claimant sustained two injuries one is Deep Laceration (2x1x1 cm) right frontal area and fracture on Right Radius, which is grievous in nature. However, the Tribunal considered both the injuries sustained by the claimant are serious in nature and assessed Rs. 80,000/-. As the claimant has sustained only one grievous injury, this Court is of the opinion that it can be reduced to Rs.50,000/-, instead of Rs. 80,000/-

¶62

Coming to the loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the income of the Claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, the accident took place in the year 2010, in the absence of documentary evidence to prove the income of the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have considered the wages payable to Claimant under Minimum Wages Act of the year 2010. As the Claimant suffered grievous injuries, this Court feels it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 300/- per day.

¶63

8

¶64

Accordingly, his monthly income would be come to Rs.9,000/-. Therefore, loss of earnings for three months would be Rs. 27,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 3 months). The Tribunal also awarded compensation under conventional heads viz., attendant charges of Rs.15,000/-; Transportation Charges is Rs. 5,000/-; Damages to clothing and articles is Rs. 5,000/-; extra nourishment is Rs. 20,000/-; Pain and suffering is Rs. 50,000/-. Rs. 50,000/- is granted towards permanent disability.

¶65

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts reduced by this Court are as follows:-

¶66

S.No.	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now reduced by this Court
1.	For Medical expenses	80,000/-	50,000/-
2.	Loss of earnings	30,000/-	27,000/-
3.	Attendant Charges	15,000/-	15,000/-
4.	Transport to Hospital	5,000/-	5,000/-
5.	Damages to clothing and Articles	5,000/-	5,000/-
6.	For Extra Nourishment	20,000/-	20,000/-
7.	For continuing or permanent disability	50,000/-	50,000/-
	Total	2,55,000/-	1,72,000/-

¶67

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs. 2,55,000/- to 1,72,000/- 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 claimant in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

9

¶69

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶70

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.02.2026 KK

The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Merugu Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Merugu Srinivasa Rao

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

C Janaki, Vs v Babu

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Golagamudi Subbaramaiah

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Golagamudi Chandramma

Apsrtc Vs Akula Sujatha

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamisetty Venkata Subbaiah

The Depot Manager Vs Sare Demudamma