Partly allowed

Bangara Sivaprasad v. M.Appala Swamy and Anr.

Telangana HC25 Jun 2018MACMA/1201/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In no representation appeal, the High Court reviewed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal findings. Holding that lack of transport endorsement did not absolve the insurer, the Court allowed the appeal partly, making owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability against owner and insurer upheld. Claimant permitted to withdraw compensation upon deposit.

Bangara Sivaprasad Vs M.Appala Swamy and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1 2 0 1 of 2 0 0 6

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (‘the Act’, for brevity), is filed by the appellant-claimant, challenging the order, dated 20.02.2006, passed in M.O.P.No.270 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (‘the Tribunal, for brevity), seeking two reliefs, i.e., (1) to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal; and (2) to fasten liability against the 2^nd respondent-the United India Insurance Company in payment of compensation to him.

¶5

2 . Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company and perused the record. Despite listing the matter under the caption “For Orders”, there is no representation for the appellant-claimant. This appeal is of the year 2006. It underwent several adjournments. Hence, this appeal can be disposed of on merits without waiting for the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant to advance arguments.

¶6

3 . The learned Standing Counsel for the respondentInsurance Company would submit that there are violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which is marked as Ex.B.1. The driver of the offending auto bearing registration No.AP-31-W-9073 was holding licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicles. There is no endorsement on his licence to drive auto,

¶7

which is a transport vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly absolved the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the appellant-claimant and fastened liability only against the 1^st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle. Further, the Tribunal had calculated the compensation payable to the appellant-claimant at Rs.1,10,900/ - on all scores, which is just and reasonable. There is noting to take a different view and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶8

4 . As far as grant of compensation of Rs.1,10,900/ - to the appellant-claimant by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal had analysed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and held that the appellant-claimant is entitled for the said compensation. So, there is nothing to take a different view.

¶9

5 . While dealing with the aspect of fastening the liability on the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company, the Tribunal, relying on Ex.B.2-Driving Licence particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle and the evidence of R.W.1-G.Syama Sundara Rao (employee of the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company), held that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence only to drive Light Motor Vehicles and that there is no endorsement on the said licence permitting him to drive Auto, which is a transport vehicle and hence, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also held that the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the appellantclaimant.

¶10

6 . Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The offending vehicle, i.e., auto bearing registration No.AP-31-W9073 falls within the category of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. Merely because there is no endorsement on the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, permitting him to drive transport vehicles, the 2^nd respondent-insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability. The Tribunal erred in absolving the 2^nd respondentInsurance Company from paying compensation to the appellantclaimant.

¶11

7 . Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part holding that the respondents 1 and 2, i.e., the owner of the offending auto bearing registration No.AP-31-W-9073 and its insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation determined by the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant. On deposit of the compensation, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with interest accrued thereon. The other terms of the Order under challenge remain unaltered.

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶13

¶14

Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶15

25^th June, 2018 Bvv

Bangara Sivaprasad v. M.Appala Swamy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangara Sivaprasad v. M.Appala Swamy and Anr.

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

Singarapu , Kanaparthi Kanakamma Vs Sangekar Narender

A. Durga Vara Prasad Vs The State of A.P

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Yellapu Kasumani and 3 Ors.

Mohammad Hyder , Mohammad Hyder and Another Vs Baby T. Ambika and Another

Tamada Chinna Vs Bevara Appalanaidu

Yerra Gundla Ashnna, Vs Sri Chinna Gangaram