Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Yarlagadda SArala

Telangana HC20 Jun 2018MACMA/5487/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, an insurance company, appealed against an award of Rs.3 lakh in compensation for a motor accident. The court held the driving license classification correct and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the Tribunal's order granting Rs.3,00,000/- compensation is dismissed.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Yarlagadda SArala — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.5 4 8 7 of 2 0 0 8

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity) is filed by the appellant/ The National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ - as claimed, to the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC) Ongole (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), vide order, dated 24.09.2008, passed in M.V.O.P.No.275 of 2006.

¶5

2 . Heard the learned Standing Counsel for appellantInsurance Company, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants and perused the record.

¶6

3 . The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle (Tractor bearing registration No.AP-07-AF-2089) was possessing driving licence only to drive Light Motor Vehicles, but not a transport vehicle. The Tribunal has also awarded excess compensation and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned judgment/ award by allowing the appeal.

¶7

4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants would contend that the Tribunal had granted just and reasonable compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ - with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

¶8

¶9

petition till realisation and with costs. There are no circumstances to vary the same. Further, the offending vehicle turned turtle while the driver of the same attempted to cross a small irrigation canal, as a result of which, the driver fell underneath it and died on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid driving licence. Tractor is a light motor vehicle. The Tribunal had recorded a specific finding to that effect. There are no circumstances to vary the compensation granted by the Tribunal and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶10

5 . In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows: -

¶11

1 . W h et h er t h e Tr ibu n al is j u st ified in gr an t in g com pen sat ion of Rs.3 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 / - t o t h e r espon den t s 1 t o 3 / claim an t s, w h o ar e t h e depen dan t s of t h e deceased.

¶12

2 . W h et h er t h e appellan t -I n su r an ce Com pan y be absolv ed fr om it s liabilit y h oldin g t h at t h e deceased w as n ot h avin g dr ivin g licen ce t o dr ive t r an spor t veh icle.

¶13

6 . As per the evidence on record, on 18.12.2005, the

¶14

deceased-Y.Rattaiah Chowdary was ploughing the land with the offending vehicle. While he was entering into another part of the land (madi) and while he was attempting to cross a small irrigation canal, the wheels of the offending vehicle struck into the canal, engine portion of the offending vehicle raised and the offending vehicle turned turtle resulting the deceased fell underneath it and died on the spot. As per the evidence on record, the deceased was possessing driving licence to drive

¶15

¶16

Light Motor Vehicles. The Tribunal, while determining the aspect with regard to the deceased possessing valid driving licence, held that to describe a vehicle as Light Motor Vehicle or Heavy Motor Vehicle, the un-laden weight of it must be taken into consideration and that as per the Act, the un-laden weight of the offending vehicle is below 7500 Kgs and hence, the offending vehicle is a Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal relied on the decisions reported in UI I C Vs. T.T.V.Reddy¹ , NI C Vs. An n appa I r appa Nesar ia an d ot h er s² and NI C Vs. Ch in n am m a³ for reaching to the said conclusion. The findings of the Tribunal on this aspect cannot be held erroneous. No other view is possible.

¶17

7 . The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ - to the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Assessment and calculation of the compensation by the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record. There is nothing to take a different view. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18