Dismissed

S. Subba Reddy v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012CMA/99/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the vehicle owner against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on accident liability, quantum of compensation, and the dismissal of insurance liability as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the owner of the lorry is dismissed with no order as to costs.

S. Subba Reddy Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶5

C.M.A.NO.99 OF 1999

08.02.2012

Between:-

S.Subba Reddy

.. Appellant

And

United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Vijayawada and others.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

JUDGMENT:-

¶14

This appeal is filed against the judgment, dated 26.10.1992, passed in M.V.O.P.No.409 of 1990 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Guntur.

¶15

2. The appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶16

3. I have heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N.V.Jagannath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Insurance Company.

¶17

4. The brief facts necessary for consideration are claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant No.2 is the son of the deceased Kannuri Suryanarayana. Claimant No.2 was a minor child on the date of accident. While the deceased was travelling in the lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770 along with other coolies on 9/10.09.1990 for attending

¶18

work of loading and unloading ash from Perecherla to Vijayawada at the instance of the owner of the vehicle, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry, it dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.T.N.Z.8415 from behind at Nagarjuna University on National Highway No.5. The deceased Suryanarayana received severe injuries and he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. On account of his death in the motor vehicle accident, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal, considering the income of the deceased, who was earning Rs.600 p.m., by deducting 1/3^rd of his income towards his personal and living expenditure, calculated the compensation amount basing on multiplier of “17.1” basing on the judgment in Bhagawan Das v. Mohd. Ari f^[1] and arrived at the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,03,000/-, but restricted the same to only Rs.1,00,000/-, which was claimed by the claimants. Challenging the said Award, the present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle.

¶19

5. One of the contentions urged by the appellant/owner of the lorry bearing A.D.T.3770 is that the learned Tribunal wrongly recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. According to the appellant, the accident was as a result of collision between two lorries bearing Nos.A.D.T.3770 and T.N.Z.8415 and that the learned Tribunal failed to take notice of the said fact and rendered an erroneous decision that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770. It is also further contended by the appellant that the petition itself is not maintainable for not impleading the owner and Insurance Company of the lorry bearing No.T.N.Z.8415. The quantum of compensation is also challenged on the ground that it is on higher side.

¶20

6. Except the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, there is no other evidence adduced by the appellant or the Insurance Company as to the manner of occurrence of accident. The learned Tribunal, believing the version of P.W.1, which is consistent with the averments of the F.I.R. lodged at the earliest point of time, recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770. Absolutely, there was no evidence let in by the appellant showing that there was collision between two vehicles. In the absence thereof and taking into account the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770. As regards the non-joinder of necessary parties, the Court has to take into consideration the averments in the claim petition. As per the averments in the claim petition, the offending lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770 dashed against the stationed lorry on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770. Merely because the appellant contended before the learned Tribunal that the accident was on account of collision between two lorries, it is not obligatory on the part of the claimants to implead the owner and Insurance Company of the lorry bearing No.T.N.Z.8415 as respondents to the claim petition. The learned Tribunal will have to render a decision basing on the evidence available on record with reference to the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, I also see absolutely no force in the contention raised by the appellant that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶21

7. The income of the deceased, which was considered by the Tribunal, is Rs.600/- per month and the same being reasonable and the compensation being calculated in accordance with the judgment in Bhagawan Das v. Mohd.Arif and the same being in accordance with

¶22

law, I do not see any ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation also. The main contention of the owner of the vehicle is that the learned Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants despite the fact that the deceased was engaged as labourer for the purpose of attending labour work. I absolutely see no force in this contention also. The learned Tribunal, taking into account that several persons including the deceased were travelling in a goods vehicle considered them as gratuitous passengers and in the absence of any evidence let in by the owner of the vehicle, has rightly held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The said finding also does not require any interference.

¶23

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the owner of the lorry bearing No.A.D.T.3770 fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶25

08^th February, 2012 AMD

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶27

C.M.A.NO.99 OF 1999

¶28

Date: 08.02.2012

¶29

AMD

¶30

[1] 1987(II`) ALT 137

S. Subba Reddy v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Subba Reddy v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Aktharunnisa Begum

K.C. Rajender, Vs Apsrtc., Represented by its Managing Director

M. Guruvaiah Naidu Vs K. Valarmathi

Pedapudi Satyavathi, Vs Donipati Rama Chandrarao

Gaddam Vishwanadham Vs Mukhim Ahmed

Santosh Vs P. Chandrasekhar