Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. P.S. Satyanarayana

Telangana HC4 Dec 2014MACMA/2063/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging an award of Rs.1,57,000 for a 2003 motor accident where a Jeep collided head-on with an APSRTC bus. The Tribunal held both drivers contributed to the accident. The Special Judge held that without an FIR, scene report, or jeep driver examination, the Tribunal's finding could not be interfered with, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurance company against the Tribunal's award of Rs.1,57,000 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs P.S. Satyanarayana — Insurance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2063 OF 2007

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The 3^rd respondent-insurance company among the three respondents including the owner of the jeep bearing No.AP 21 E 5999 and the APSTC owner of the bus No.AP 10 Z 6170; preferred the appeal impugning the award dated 30.08.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.297 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-Special Judge for trial of SC and ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in awarding Rs.1,57,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. and out of which 50% against the 1^st respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C and 50% against respondent Nos.2 and 3, insured and insurer of the jeep jointly and severally out of the claim under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- of the accident dated 12.05.2003.

¶4

2. Heard Sri T.Ramulu, the learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurance company, Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy learned counsel for the claimants and Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

¶5

3 . The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant-insurance company in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law and illegal, that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., APSRTC bus and Jeep is erroneous, illegal and contrary to evidence on record, that the Tribunal should have held that the accident occurred was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus basing on evidence of eye witness and other documentary evidence like charge sheet, that non-examination of the driver of APSRTC bus in adverse

¶6

inference was to be drawn by the Tribunal and ought to have held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC, that the accident occurred was due to negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles is based on surmises and conjectures and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the award of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer reiterated the same. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents as claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is no way excessive and no way requires interference. The learned standing counsel for APSRTC also contended that there is nothing to interfere for this Court while sitting in the appeal for there was contributory negligence and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶7

4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

¶8

1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence against the drivers of APSRTC as well as Jeep is liable to be set aside, if so, with what observations?

¶9

2. To what result?

¶10

POINT No.1 :

¶11

5. The facts are that on 12.05.2003 while the deceased along with her relatives traveling from Adoni to Yemmiganur in the Jeep bearing NoAP 21 E 5999, by the time the jeep crossed Peddakadubur village an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6170 came in the opposite direction, the accident took place and the deceased, aged about 12 years, died due to the injuries, for which the respondentsclaimants being parents of the deceased claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf claimants. No witnesses were examined or marked any documents on behalf of Respondents therein. After perusal of the entire material on record and after hearing of all the parties in the claim petition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- towards compensation by fixing contributory negligence of 50% each against

¶12

the APSRTC on one side and the owner and insurer on the other side. Against the fixing of contributory negligence, the insurer filed the present appeal.

¶13

6. The fact that both the vehicles were involved while proceeding in opposite direction that resulted the accident is not in dispute. No doubt, the charge sheet filed is against the R.T.C driver and the R.T.C driver was not even examined as one of the witness for Respondent. Equally the jeep driver was not examined in this case. The F.I.R not even filed in this case which is the first document in setting the law in motion to know the version regarding the accident. Apart from it, the M.V.I Report is not even filed equally the scene observation report. When both vehicles were proceeding in opposite direction and the accident occurred on the road and to say that R.T.C bus alone liable and not the jeep either for the insured or for the insurer of the jeep so to contend, these are the material documents like size of the road, width of the road, exact place on the road the accident occurred with reference to damage caused to what extent of both vehicles and at which portion to decide. In the absence of which that too for this Court while sitting in appeal against the impugned award of the Tribunal for the Tribunal having recorded the evidence and fresh in mind of the facts when came to the conclusion from the head on collision of both vehicles practically, there is nothing to interfere merely because another view is also possible from the said contentions raised. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶14

POINT No.3:

¶15

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶18

Date:04-12-2014 ksh

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. P.S. Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. P.S. Satyanarayana

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

Tirupathi Stevenson Vs Tirupathi Sarika , K. Sarika

M. Ravikanth Reddy Vs Smt. M. Divya , Vijaya Kumari

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs N. Laxman

Smt. K.Kamalamma Vs Sri B.Ramachandraiah

Icici General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vanampally , Kalal Sujatha

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ponnala Narasamma