Partly allowed

The Government of A.P. v. P. Pakkirappa

Telangana HC14 Feb 2012MACMA/2618/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Government of Andhra Pradesh alone is liable for compensation when a requisitioned vehicle causes an accident while on election duty. The award was modified to reduce the quantum to Rs.3,00,000 due to compassionate appointment to the deceased's brother and reduced interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.3,00,000; Government of A.P. directed to pay; Insurance Company exonerated; interest rate reduced to 7.5%.

The Government of A.P. Vs P. Pakkirappa — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

+M.A.C.M.A No.27 OF 2006 & 2618 OF 2008

¶3

%Dated.14.02.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M.A.C.M.A No.27 OF 2006

¶6

#Divisional Manager,
The United India Insurance Compa	ny Limite	d,
Anantapur.	---	Appellant/
		Respondent
No.2.
	AND
$P. Pakirappa and three others.	---	Respondents/
		Petitioners/
M.A.C.M.A No.	2618 OF	Respondent Nos.1 & 3. 2008
#Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by District Collector,
Anantapur.	---	Appellant/
		Respondent
No.3.
	AND
$B. Pakirappa and three others.		---
Respondents/
Petitioners/		Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
! Counsel for the Appellant	: Sr	i E. Venugopal Reddy.
^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1	& 2 : Ma	heswara Rao Kunche.
^ Counsel for Respondent No.4		: Government
Pleader for	Ar	bitration.

¶7

< Gist :

¶8

> Head Note:

¶9

? Cases referred : -

¶10

1. (2008) 1 SCC 414.

¶11

2. AIR 2009 SCC 3104.

¶12

3. (2008) 11 SCC 366.

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶14

DATE. 14-02-2012.

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶17

M.A.C.M.A No.27 OF 2006 & 2618 OF 2008

¶18

Between:

¶19

M.A.C.M.A No.27 OF 2006

¶20

Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur. --- Appellant/ Respondent

¶21

No.2.

¶22

P. Pakirappa and three others. --- Respondents/ Petitioners/ Respondent Nos.1

¶23

& 3.

¶24

M.A.C.M.A No.2618 OF 2008

¶25

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Anantapur. --- Appellant/

¶26

Respondent No.3.

¶27

AND B. Pakirappa and three others. --- Respondents/ Petitioners/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶28

The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶29

M.A.C.M.A No.27 OF 2006 AND 2618 OF 2008

¶30

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶31

M.A.C.M.A. No.27 of 2006 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.2618 of 2008 is filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector, Anantapur against the award dated 14-09-2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Anantapur) in O.P. No.367 of 2002. Since these two appeals arise out of the same award passed in the O.P. between the same parties, which arose out of the same accident, both these appeals are disposed of by the following common judgment.

¶32

2. Heard Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited in M.A.C.M.A. No.27 of

¶33

2006 and the learned Government Pleader for Appellant-Government of Andhra Pradesh in M.A.C.M.A. No.2618 of 2008 and Sri Kunche Maheswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 in these two appeals.

¶34

3. The deceased P. Kullayappa, aged about 25 years, working as Constable in Armed Reserve Force, was drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and he was posted on bandobust duty to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 25-08-1999 who was on electioneering visit to Anantapur district. The deceased was in the convoy of the Chief Minister traveling in Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP02/C 0126 belonging to one S. Sudhakar (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the owner’ of the vehicle), who is one of the respondents in these appeals. The jeep belonging to Mr. S. Sudhakar was requisitioned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of election and at about 08-40 p.m. on 25-08-1999 while the Chief Minister’s convoy was proceeding from Dharmavaram to Anantapur, on account of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the jeep hit electric transformer which resulted in the death of Mr. P. Kullayappa, as a result of electrocution.

¶35

4. The parents of the deceased P. Kullayappa, who died in the motor vehicle accident, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the

¶36

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Against the said claim, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,97,200/- and held that the owner of the Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP02/C 0126 and the United India Insurance Company, with which it was insured, and also the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which requisitioned the vehicle for the purpose of electioneering visit are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Against the said award, the United India Insurance Company Limited filed M.A.C.M.A. No.27 of 2006 contending that since the jeep was requisitioned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of Andhra Pradesh alone is liable to pay compensation and neither the owner of the vehicle nor the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation and therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal, which held that the Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation, has to be set aside. On the other hand, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.2618 of 2008 challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the owner of the jeep bearing No.AP02/C 0126 and the United India Insurance Company, with which it was insured, are only liable to pay compensation and the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall be set aside. It was further

¶37

contended by the learned Government Pleader that while granting compensation the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact the brother of the deceased was given compassionate appointment and also the amount which was paid to the dependants as ex-gratia, while arriving at the quantum of compensation.

¶38

5. The claimants, however, did not file any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the following questions would arise for consideration in these two appeals.

¶39

1. Who is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, the parents of the deceased?

¶40

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable or deserves to be reduced in view of the compassionate appointment given to the brother of the deceased and the ex-gratia paid to the claimants, after the death of the deceased in the accident?

¶41

6. Point No.1: Admittedly, the jeep bearing No.AP02/C 0126 belonging to Mr. S. Sudhakar, owner of the vehicle, was requisitioned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for electioneering visit and the said jeep was involved in the accident, while it was on election duty. Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A. No.27 of 2006 contended that when once the jeep was requisitioned by the

¶42

Government of Andhra Pradesh for electioneering, any liability arising out of the accident, while the jeep was on election duty shall be with the Government alone, either the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company shall not be made liable to pay compensation and the Tribunal erred in holding that the owner of the jeep, it’s Insurer and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which requisitioned the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in

¶43

National Insurance Company Limited V. Deepa Devi and others^[1]

¶44

wherein it was held as follows :

¶45

“No doubt, Respondents 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owners of the vehicle despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred upon him under the representation of the People Act. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is; put in charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover.

¶46

In a situation of this nature, the case must proceed on the presumption that Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act

¶47

did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view.”

¶48

7. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, the

¶49

Government of Andhra Pradesh which requisitioned the Jeep bearing No.AP02/C 0126 alone is responsible to pay compensation and the finding of the learned Tribunal holding that the owner of the vehicle, Insurer and the Government of Andhra Pradesh are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside to that extent and it is held in this appeal that the Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e. the appellant in M.A.C.M.A. No.2618 of 2008 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the owner of the vehicle and the Insurer are exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.

¶50

8. The next question to be determined is whether the compensation of Rs.3,97,200/- granted by the learned Tribunal against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- is just and reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶51

9. The compensation is computed basing on the judgment in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

¶52

anothe r^[2] by the learned Tribunal below and there is no appeal filed

¶53

by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bhakra Beas Management Board V. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt) and others^[3] it was held that just compensation is a balancing Act, benefits received by the claimants/L.Rs of the deceased by way of compassionate appointment and accommodation shall have to be taken into consideration while determining the just compensation. The Apex Court expressed the view that the first respondent who lost her husband in a motor vehicle accident was however given compassionate appointment, through which she received a monthly salary of Rs.4,700/- and so also provided accommodation, in the claim petition filed by the first respondent and her children the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,48,160/- plus interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the award is considered to be on higher side, keeping in vie w of the compensation received by the first respondent on account of her husband’s death, which had taken place 14 years ago, the Supreme Court instead of remitting back the matter, ordered release of Rs.5,00,000/- already deposited, towards full and final satisfaction of the claim, subject to the amount of fixed deposit to be determined by the Tribunal.

¶54

10. As per the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision 3^rd supra, though on account of compassionate

¶55

appointment given to the L.Rs of the deceased, the compensation cannot be totally denied to the claimants, the compassionate appointment and other benefits given are the important factors which have to be taken into consideration before arriving at the just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal while granting compensation shall have due regard to the compassionate appointment or other benefits given to the L.Rs. of the deceased in the instant case. There is no dispute about the fact that the brother of the deceased was given employment by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on compassionate grounds. Though it was contended that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/was paid as ex-gratia to the claimants, who are the L.Rs of the deceased and also a house site of Ac.0-03 cents was given to them, the Government did not adduce any evidence on the said aspect. The claimants who are parents of the deceased are also dependents on the brother of the deceased who was provided employment on compassionate grounds after death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident. The learned Tribunal, however, did not take into consideration all these facts. For the purpose of determining just compensation, the said facts have to be taken into consideration. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision 3^rd supra, took into consideration such similar factors and held that the compensation

¶56

granted by the Tribunal was considered to be on higher side keeping in view of the benefits received by the respondent on account of her husband’s death, reduced the compensation amount from Rs.8,48,160/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. In the instant case also, though the assessment of the compensation made by the learned Tribunal below is proper, the factum of providing compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased was not taken into consideration. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.97,200/- shall be deducted from the total amount of compensation of Rs.3,97,200/- in view of the compassionate appointment provided to the brother of the deceased. The claimants are therefore entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% p.a.

¶57

In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.27 of 2006 filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited is allowed and M.A.C.M.A. No.2618 of 2008 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is partly allowed. Consequently, the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P. No.367 of 2002 on 14-09-2005 is modified to the extent indicated above. The Government of A.P. is directed to pay the amount of compensation awarded in this appeal together with interest and costs to the claimants. The Appellant-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.

¶58

No.27 of 2006 is exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.

¶59

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 14-02-2012. Note:. L.R. Copy to be marked. B/o.Dsh.

¶61

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶62

288

¶63

M.A.C.M.A No.27 OF 2006 & 2618 OF 2008