Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Golkonda srinivas

Telangana HC21 Apr 2015MACMA/319/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by an insurance company challenging compensation awards in motor accident claims. The court dismissed the appeals, rejecting the insurer's argument for liability apportionment due to lack of evidence regarding the tractor driver's negligence.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed, confirming the orders and decrees passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Golkonda… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.606 and 607 of 2006 and 319 of 2012

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶4

These three appeals arise from one and the same accident. MACMA Nos.606 and 607 of 2006 arise out of the common order rendered in MVOP Nos.875 and 874 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-Principal District Judge, Warangal. By order dated 07.12.2004, the said Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.875 of 2003 and Rs.1,38,000/in M.V.O.P.No.874 of 2003 towards the death of the deceased therein. Whereas MACMA No.319 of 2012 arises out of the order

¶5

dated 30.10.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.817 of 2004 on the file of the very same Tribunal granting a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation.

¶6

2. The Insurance Company-second respondent in these three O.Ps., is the present appellant. It seeks to modify the orders and decrees passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the tractor and trailor, which was involved in the accident, has also contributed to the accident since 30 persons were travelling at the time of the accident on a small trailor attached to the tractor, which itself speaks about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor and thus, to apportion 50% liability to pay the compensation on the owner as well as the insurer of the tractor.

¶7

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.

¶8

4. The facts, in brief, are that on 27.03.2003, the deceased and others were

¶9

travelling in a tractor and trailor from Ramanujapur to Koukonda at about 6.00 PM and when it reached near Mulakothapally, a lorry bearing registration No.AP 16U 2347 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the said tractor and trailor resulting in the death of the persons travelling in a tractor as well as injuries to some of the persons travelling in the trailor. Thus, in M.V.O.P.No.874 of 2003, the deceased was 37 years old earning Rs.3,000/-per month and the petitioners, who are the husband and son of the deceased, laid the claim for Rs.3,00,000/-. Whereas in M.V.O.P.No.875 of 2003, the deceased was 60 years old earning Rs.2,000/-per month and the petitoners, who are the sons of the deceased, laid the claim for Rs.1,50,000/-. In M.V.O.P.No.817 of 2004, the deceased was 5 years old and the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, laid the claim for Rs.2,31,200 /-.

¶10

5. All these claims are laid under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the respective petitioners.

¶11

6. The first respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In so far as M.V.O.P.Nos.874 and 875 of 2003 are concerned, the second respondent-insurer filed common counter. In M.V.O.P.No.817 of 2004, the insurer filed a separate counter. Though, the pleas putforth are one and the same, it opposed the claim in all these petitions and ultimately pleaded for dismissal of the claim petitions.

¶12

7. Basing on the said pleadings in M.V.O.P.Nos.874 and 875 of 2003, the Tribunal framed four issues and during enquriy, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. In M.V.O.P.No.817 of 2004, the Tribunal framed three issues and during enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. No evidence was let in on behalf of the second respondent-insurance company either oral or documentary in all these O.Ps. As stated above, in M.V.O.Ps.874 and 875 of 2003, the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,38,000/- and Rs.50,000/respectively, to the petitioners with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, whereas in O.P.No.817 of 2004, the Tribunal has

¶13

granted compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.

¶14

8. Heard Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in all these three appeals. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in MACMA Nos.606 and 607 of 2006, there is no representation. So far as R3 is concerned, in MACMA No.607 of 2006 notice was served on him, but in MACMA No.606 of 2006 batta has been due. In MACMA No.319 of 2012, there is no representation for respondents 1 and 2 and so far as R3 is concerned, he was only the driver of the lorry and, therefore, non service is of no consequence.The appeal against R4-owner was dismissed for default on 07.09.2011. However, it makes no difference so far as owner is concerned since in one of the appeals he was served, but none appears for him. Even dismissal against him in MACMA No.319 of 2012 is of no consequence for the reason he suffered orders and decrees in all these three O.Ps., and also in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, the dismissal of appeal for default against him is of no consequence in fastening liability on insurer –appellant since respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶15

9. The only ground agitated by the insurance company in all these three appeals is that since 30 persons were travelling on a trailor attached to the tractor, which itself reflects that the driver of the tractor and trailor since unable to control the vehicle due to overloading of the vehicle must have contributed to the accident and therefore, to apportion the liability at 50% on the owner and insurer of the tractor and trailor. As seen from the evidence let in by the parties, the insurance company has not chosen to lead any evidence to prove that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailor, on account of which, the driver of the tractor and trailor contributed to the accident. The Tribunal has recorded a definite finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the accident has occurred resulting in the deaths as well as injuries to the persons travelling in the trailor. As the crime was registered against the lorry driver and even charge sheet was laid, the said finding does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, it

¶16

does not warrant any interference. Except the said ground, no other grounds are agitated by the insurance company challenging the findings recorded or the amounts awarded. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals.

¶17

10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed confirming the orders and decrees passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

11. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeals stand disposed of.

¶19

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶20

21^st April, 2015

¶21

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Golkonda srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Golkonda srinivas

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

E. Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kusum Vs Bheesabathini Seshu Kumar

D.Thirupathi Vs Y.Srinivas Reddy

R. Sri Gopal Vs State of Telangana

Uppaluri Venkata Satyanarayana E.G.Dt. Vs State of Ap. Rep Pp and Anr.

Uppaluri Venkata Satyanarayana E.G.Dt. Vs State of Ap. Rep Pp and Anr.