Partly allowed

Gokuladinne Nageswara Rao v. B.Siva Reddy

Telangana HC26 Nov 2014MACMA/2056/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's exoneration of the insurer, holding the injury occurred within the scope of the policy while appellants acted as covered workers. The compensation was enhanced from Rs.20,000/and Rs.21,000/to Rs.40,000/per appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.40,000 per appellant. Insurer and owner held jointly and severally liable to pay with interest.

Gokuladinne Nageswara Rao Vs B.Siva Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2004 & 2056 of 2007

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶4

M.A.C.M.A.No.2004 of 2007

¶5

The appellant-Petitioner filed this appeal aggrieved by the order/award dated 08.06.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.2 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (for short, ’Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/with interest at 7.5% p.a. against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- exonerating the insurer in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No.2056 of 2007

¶7

2) The appellant-Petitioner filed this appeal aggrieved by the order/award dated 08.06.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.4 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (for short, ’Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.21,000/with interest at 7.5% p.a. against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- exonerating the insurer in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶8

3) Heard Sri A.Jayashankara Reddy the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Ashok Rama Rao learned standing counsel for the insurer in the respective appeals. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

¶9

4 ) The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant-Petitioner in nutshell are that the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in not fixing the liability on the insurance company on the ground that the driver was not holding

¶10

valid licence and policy was as if not covered the risk even though there is evidence on record to hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurance company also for he was traveling as hamali at the time of accident and the policy covers the risk and in force as on the date of accident, that the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the appellant as Rs.50/- and prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for against the 2^nd respondent also. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same during the course of hearing. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent-insurer contended that the above contentions are untenable and there is nothing to interfere with the awards of the Tribunal hence to dismiss the appeals.

¶11

5) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

¶12

1. Whether the awards of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claimants require interference by this Court while sitting in the appeal and if so with what observations and for what compensation?

¶13

2. To what result?

¶14

POINT No.1:

¶15

6) The fact that both the appellants on 20.07.2004 loaded the slab stones in the tractor and tailor bearing No.AP 21 U 6937 and AP 21 U 1439 and they were going in the said tractor trailer as Hamalies to unload the stones when the tractor reached near Sankarapuram bus stop and the driver of the tractor trailer drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and having could not control the vehicle suddenly applied the brakes, as a result of which the appellants and two others fell down and received injuries, not in dispute

¶16

7) The Tribunal having held that as per National Insurance

¶17

Company Limited V. Prem Bhai Pate l^[1] the risk of the employees of the Act policy covered under Workmens Compensation Act and in the case on hand, there is no permanent disability proved to assess compensation can be under Workmens Compensation Act and as such the insurer cannot be made liable but for the owner of the crime vehicle.

¶18

8) A perusal of the Ex.B-1 policy for both tractor and trailer shows that it is not mere Act policy, but a standard package policy of the goods carrying commercial vehicle. The policy speaks from Page No.1 limitations on liability that the use is only for carriage of goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act. The policy does not cover organized racing, pace making, reliability trials or speed testing; drawing a trailer except the towing; carrying passengers in vehicles except employees not exceeding the number permitted in registered document and coming under purview of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Rule 185 of the A.P.M.V.Rules provides for six coolies for loading and unloading, other than driver to permit. Thus, carrying passengers upto the permitted limit under the W.C. Act, risk is covered from the above limits of liability for loading and unloading and in connection thereto though it does not cover the risk of mere passengers carrying. The claim of the Petitioners was traveling as coolies (hamalies) that is also proved from evidence. As such, the policy covers the risk.

¶19

9) Coming the quantum of compensation, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is just and proper to award compensation towards fracture injury received and an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards other simple injuries, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges, medical expenses, extra nourishment, transport charges, loss of earnings and in all it comes to Rs.40,000/- is just and reasonable compensation to each of the petitioners/appellants in both the cases. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶20

POINT No.2:

¶21

10) In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.20,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.2 of 2005 and from Rs.21,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.4 of 2005 to Rs.40,000/- to each appellant. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and the 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The

¶22

respective Appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective entire amount after deposit made by the insurer. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

11) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

¶24

_______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶25

Date: 26-11-2014 ksh

¶26

[1] (2005)6 SCC 172

Gokuladinne Nageswara Rao v. B.Siva Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokuladinne Nageswara Rao v. B.Siva Reddy

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

Kandregula Padmavathi Vs Golla Subrahmanya Prasad

Japa Vajramma Vs Palle Sahadev

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Marapalli Komuraiah

Shaik Rahim Tunnisa Vs P. Mohan Babu

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Vemula Mannaiah

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Vuppu Subba Rao