The Single Judge dismissed an appeal against an award compensating a deceased passenger in a head-on collision. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence and rejected new pleas that the vehicle was a goods carriage.
Award dated 27.10.2006 passed in O.P. No. 427 of 2003 was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI J USTICE N. BALAYOGI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1469 of 2009
J UDGMENT:
Limited, aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in O.P.No.427 of 2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, preferred this appeal for the following among other grounds that there is no negligence on the part of auto bearing No. AP 04U 5619 and the accident was due to negligence on the part of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21U 4556 and that the Tribunal erred in contributing 50% of the rash and negligence to the driver of auto bearing No. AP 04 U 5619.
Owner of the auto is liable as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger traveling in the goods auto carrier at the time of accident and as no premium was paid covering the rescue of passengers being carried in the goods vehicle, the appellantInsurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
2
On 02.03.2003 at about 4.15 PM the accident occurred involving auto bearing number AP.04 U 5619 and a mini lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 4556. At the time of accident, the deceased, P.W.2 and another were travelling as passengers in the auto bearing No.AP 04 U 5619. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the deceased—Mogili Balaiah succumbed to injuries.
3
4
the report that due to negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 04 U 5619, the accident occurred. A reading of Ex. A.1 clearly goes to suggest that in the FIR, P.W.2 stated that the lorry “
which means that the accident occurred due to ‘head on collusion’ of both auto and mini lorry. The manner in which the accident occurred was specifically stated in the Ex.A.1. It was also stated in the charge sheet Ex. A.4 that the auto driver drove the auto with high speed and lost control and similarly the driver of the lorry without blowing horn drove in high speed, in rash and negligent manner and the accident was due to ‘head on collusion’. The Investigating Officer in Ex. A.4 specifically stated that the auto and mini lorry dashed against each other. Though the appellant cross examined P.W.2 at length, could not elicit any favourable information.
5
6
decide the manner in which the accident occurred and who is responsible for the cause of accident.
7
probabilities and considered Ex. B.1 policy and came to the conclusion that as per Ex. B.1-policy which was issued by the appellant-Insurance Company in respect of auto, it was mentioned in the head note that ‘Certificate of Insurance of Goods Carrying (3-wh and Pedal Cycles) Public Carriers’. But, no where in other part of the insurance policy it is described that it is an insurance policy issued in respect of the goods carriage. The title of the document Ex. B.1-policy which is mentioned above is not indicating clearly that it is a certificate of insurance issued in respect of the goods carrying vehicle only. The words ‘public’ carrier’ herein has not been stricked off. Considering these circumstances and the other material on record, the given vehicle was not appearing to be a goods vehicle.
8
before the Tribunal, now it is not open to the appellant for the first time to take such plea that Ex.B.1 policy was issued for a goods carrier auto bearing No. AP 04 U 5619 and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the said auto at the time of accident.
9
considered the age of the deceased as 50 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘13’. Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal applied correctly the multiplier taking into consideration the oral testimony of P.W.1 in the absence of any other rebuttal evidence and assessed the compensation accordingly.
circumstances of the case, both oral and documentary evidence and contentions advanced by learned Counsel on either side, I find that the Award dated 27.10.2006 passed in O.P.No. 427 of 2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa is legal, valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
10
O.P.No. 427 of 2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.
------------------------------------JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI
DATED 12th JUNE, 2017. Msnrx
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in attributing 50% negligence to the auto driver in a head-on collision.
Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation when the passengers were not covered under the goods carriage policy.
Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 13 for a deceased aged 50 years.
United India Insurance Company Limited
Owners of the auto
Deceased's family members
Other claimants
N. Balayogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
