Partly allowed

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. v Hemalatha

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013MACMA/2033/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.17,83,000 for a fatal accident. The Court apportioned 90% liability to the lorry driver and 10% to the intoxicated two-wheeler driver, thereby reducing the compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; compensation was reduced by 10% and re-apportioned among respondents.

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. v… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.2033 of 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

Respondents 1 to 4 filed M.V.O.P.No.669 of 2009 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad claiming a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- as compensation against the 5^th respondent and the appellant. It was pleaded that Sri Kumara Swamy, husband of the 1^st respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of the 4^th respondent, was proceeding on a scooter bearing No. MH 12 JA 8909 as a pillion rider on 28.10.2009 from Uppal to Nagole, Hyderabad. It was alleged that when the vehicle reached a shop, named as Rajasthan Stonex, a lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 6606, owned by the 5^th respondent and insured with the appellant, dashed the scooter from backside and that Kumara Swamy died on the spot. He was said to have been employed as Junior Technician in Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad with a monthly salary of Rs.16,621/- and aged 47 years as on the date of the accident. It was also alleged that Crime No.1006 of 2009 under Section 337 I.P.C. was registered.

¶5

The 5^th respondent remained ex parte and the O.P. was contested by the appellant alone. It disputed the averments as to the cause of accident, age and income of the deceased. It has also doubted the insurance coverage of the accident vehicle. One of the contentions advanced by it was that the person, who was driving the scooter, was alcoholic and at the time of accident, as many as three persons were travelling upon it. Reliance was placed upon the report of the hospital, which is to the effect that the person, who was driving the scooter and who was examined as P.W.3, was under the influence of alcohol.

¶6

The trial Court passed an order, dated 24.02.2012, awarding a sum of Rs.17,83,000/- as compensation and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 4. Hence, this appeal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the evidence on record clearly disclosed that P.W.3, the driver of the scooter, was under the influence of alcohol, either the liability on the part of the driver of the lorry ought to have been avoided or at least, contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles ought to have been fixed.

¶8

Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court has taken into account the oral and documentary evidence before it and held that the accident occurred on account of negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, insured by the appellant. He submits that no interference is warranted with the order under appeal.

¶9

As is common in cases of this nature, the Tribunal framed two issues, touching upon the cause of the accident and the quantum of compensation. They read as under:

¶10

(1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the deceased viz., V.Kumara Swamy due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Lorry) bearing No. AP 21 U 6606 by its driver?

¶11

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

¶12

On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. Ex.X1 is the driving licence.

¶13

The points that arise for consideration before us are

¶14

(a) Whether the driver of the lorry alone can be held responsible for the occurrence of the accident? and

¶15

(b) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and is in accordance with law?

¶16

Point No.1: There is no dispute that Sri Kumara Swamy died on 28.10.2009 when he was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter. The cause of his death is said to be the result of the accident and the same is evident from F.I.R., inquest report, post-mortem report, charge sheet and M.V.A. report, filed as Exs.A1 to A5. P.W.1 is the 1^st respondent. Her evidence does not throw much light upon the cause of the accident, since she was not present on the spot. P.W.2 is the witness examined in relation to the income of the deceased. His evidence also would not be of much use in this context. P.W.3 is the person, who was driving the scooter, on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. It was elicited from him that as many as three persons were travelling on the vehicle. This, obviously, is in violation of not only the Traffic Regulations, but also the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Added to that, it was found that P.W.3 was under the influence of alcohol. He was injured in the accident and he was treated in Kamineni Hospital. Ex.B3 is the discharge summary in relation to P.W.3. A perusal of the same discloses that he has

¶17

consumed alcohol when he was driving the vehicle. The Tribunal did not take this aspect into account.

¶18

It is not difficult to imagine the manner in which a person under the influence of alcohol, would drive the vehicle, that too on a highway. P.W.3 needs to be held partly liable for the occurrence of the accident. One fact, however, is that even if a person was driving a two-wheeler under the influence of intoxicants, the driver of the vehicle coming behind it is expected to be careful. Different consideration may arise, if collision is head-on. In the instant case, the lorry hit the scooter from behind. This Court is of the view that the liability for the occurrence of the accident can be fixed as 90% on the part of the driver of the lorry and 10% on the part of P.W.3. The point is answered accordingly.

¶19

Point No.2: The Tribunal has applied the correct parameters in relation to the age and the earnings of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any serious defect in it. Had respondents 1 to 4 impleaded the owner of the scooter or have adduced evidence in relation thereof, the apportionment of liability for the accident would not have made any difference, since the record is silent on that aspect. The only alternative is to reduce the compensation by 10%.

¶20

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation by 10%. The reduced amount shall be apportioned among respondents 1 to 4 in the same manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶23

______________________ S.V. BHATT,J

¶24

Dt:21.06.2013 kdl

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. v Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. v Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Sita Ronfed Vs v.Ronfed

A.Srinivas Vs a.Rani Ratna Prabha , Rani

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam Vs Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D Vs Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital Vs Sri Pranav Ravi

B. Vijaya Kumar Vs D.gopala Krishna Reddy