Dismissed

Y.Vijaya Augustine and 4 Others v. v.Satyanarayana and 3 Others

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023MACMA/1390/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Upholding the Tribunal's order, the Court ruled that since the accident occurred without the fault of the lorry driver, the appropriate compensation must be awarded under Section 140 (no-fault liability) rather than Section 166 or 163-A.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. The order and decree dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P. No. 642 of 2012 were affirmed.

Y.Vijaya Augustine and 4 Others Vs v.Satyanarayana and 3 Others — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1390 OF 201s

¶8

Appeal filed under Sectron 173 of Motor Vehicles Act., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree daled 12-12-20^'14 passed in OP.No. 642 of 2012 on lhe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xl Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Y.Vllaya Augustine, W/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, Age:S1 years, Occ: Household.

¶11

Y.Hallelu Suzan, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, age: 29 years, Occ: Student

¶12

Y.Hallelua Sharon, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, age: 28 years, Occ: Student

¶13

Y.ft4aranath Evangilin, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, age: 27 years, Occ: Student R/o. H.No. 29-246 B S.Nagar, Neredmet, Rangareddy Disirict.

¶14

Y. Grate Cherishma, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, age 25 years, Occ: Student

¶15

All are R/o. H.No 29-246 B.S.Nagar, Neredmet, Rangareddy District.

¶16

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

1 V. Satyanara yana, S/o Not Known, Age: Ma1or, Occ: Owner of the Vehicle Bearing NO. AP 01 W 3909 R/o H.No. 1-105, Gambhiraopet, Thiryani, Adilabad District.

¶19

2 Nanaji Vairagade, S/o- Bhaurao Vairqgade, Occ: Driver of the Vehicle bearing No. AP 01 W 3909, R/o. H.No. 2-85, Bangatawada, Burguda, Asifabad, Adilabad District.

¶20

3 ft,l/s. Cholamandalam N,4S General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its It4anager, Head Office Dare House. 2"u Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bos'e R6aO, Chennar, Tanrrlnadu State, PIN 600 001.

¶21

4 Y.[,4anna Roselin. D/o Late Y.B Augustine Occ: Sludent, at present she is at Dornr-1, Roonr No. 523, Dalian lvledical University, 9th Western Section, L.V. Shun South Street, L.V Shun Kou District, Datian, P.R. Chaina.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶23

Counsel for the AJrpellants: SRt. NAGESWARA RAO REpAKULA

¶24

Counsel for the Rr,spondent No.3: SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA

¶25

Counsel for the R€ spondent No.1, 2 and 4: None Appeared

¶26

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI .IIISTICE NAIIIIIVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶28

rvr.A.c.M.A.No. 1390 0F 20 15

¶29

.IUDGMENT:

¶30

This MACMA is liled under Sectioa 173 oi^tirc Motor^r/ehicles Act, 19BB by the appellantsT irctitioncrs aggrievcd b1' the order and decree dated 12.12.2014^passeclin O P.No.642 of'^'2t)12 b.y the Chairman, Motor Accidct.tt Clarn-r:; Tritrunal Cr-rm-Xl Additional District (F"TC), R.R. Drstrict (lor short ,^''tl-re Tribunal").

¶31

2 I.or tl-rc sake of convenience, the partics rvill bc l.rtlc'inaitcr rcferrcd to as thev were arraycd bc lo rc rlrt 'lri lt L.rnliI

¶32

BrieI fircLs of the casc aie tl]at ihe p<:tirioncrs i'iiccl r:lirLrn petiLron clain,ing compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ on i.hc iL('.'r/r.rDt of rh<; dealh of Y.B. Augr-rstine (hereinaifter rclcrrcrl t,.r i rs rit't'ci,rsi:<i^') stating that petitioner No.'l is; tlrr; *iie . pctilior,crs No. l2 to 4 eLr-e daughters of the dct'elrst'<i.^'firr rit'r'i'rrscci s ers aqcd 48 yearsr :rt the tirle of t.trr, accidcr:t and ltc r'',rs rr ('hr istitrrr F'r-cercher, e:arnir,g molc than Rs;..i()^()Oi).; p('r' t r'l.^r r i I I r

¶33

.,] ]

¶34

On .tLe ni6}tt ol- l.l.02.20lO rvh..: _ thc clcccascd rvas coming lron- Godl-rava. clrir,irg ^rrani^{t.*'arcrs I.rr.Lcr.b.r.l} 'r tlre car [:t-.:irir-rg No.AI, (](.r ,1_\ .+7g 1. ti,.. l. 1;r,Iitiot,rcr_ rr,ras trar.elling ir tl'rat car irrtrl at .lbout .1.S0 u.in.. uhen thc car reached ncat- Bus Depor rrf'Hal<ccn-rpet, n lot-rr t;caring No.Ap_ 0l -W-3909 rvas proceeclirg ahcad ol [l.rc c:a:-. bcirrg drivcn by its driver al I high speccl and in a rash aitcl r.rcgligent manner and sudden.y applied l.riakes :rr-rd stcpped iL ivithout any signal, as a t esult, thc c.ar rammccl ir-rto r,te lor.rr. and thc car was badly damaged, ancl both Lhe clcc,_ase d ar-rd his wife sustained se -ious injurics and carr u.as bacl., clnrnaged, and they were acimitted to C:lrdhi Ilospitai r...hc.r, the deceased succumbed to injuries. llcnce. thc clairn ltcttLi,trr.

¶35

Be fore the Trrl;rrnai, rcsponclc;tts )jo 2 and.l rvere set ex parte. Respondelts \o. I trncl 3 fjlccl ,-:,-,irnrcrs clcn_r ing the petition zrllegations. {ccorclitrgll,, przr-r.ed 1,r dismtss the claim petitio n

¶36

J To prrtVc thctr' ,.;rsc,. I)c.titiolt(,rs .: r;rrnrIicd pWs. 1 a'rd 2 ancl g.t markecl Exs .,\ I t. i\ lB. Orr ltchall- .f. r.csp.,dent No.3, the dri.,zcr of the lor r-,. ,,r as cxlrrninecl as Il,.\ . I ancl Ex.B 1 _ ctip-r. of thc insurancc poir ,, lts lrr a rl<cd

¶37

Rk. \1t( \1r\ . rrrroftt i<

¶38

¶39

6 C)n appreciation of the evidcnce on record, the Tribuna.l allowed the O.P. in part b,r' arvarding compensation of Rs.50,00O/- with interest (g:. 9'1, p.a. under no lault liability under Section 140 of M.V. Act against respondenrs No.I to 3 Challenging the same, tire prcst--nt ;rppeal is filed bv the petltloners.

¶40

7 . Learned counsei appcaring lor thc petitioners i/ltera/ia contended tha,t the Tribunal ought to have allou,ecl the claim of the petitioners as pral'ed in the claim pctition instead ol'restricting it to Rs.50,000/ and aiso the Tribunal miserably lailed to appreciate the evidencc ol pWs I and 2 atrd the documents marked under Ex.A I to A 1 B on behalf of petitioners. The Tribunal ignorcd the cviclr_.nce ol RW.l rvho cleposed that the accidcnt rook place on 13.03.2010 rhough the accident took place on 13.02.20 10. He rnainl.v contencled ttrat the accident took place: due to soii. negligcr.rc(, on thc pzrrt of the driver of the lorry bearing No.Ap 01 W 3909, u ho drovc it in a rash and negiigent rnanncr and suddenl-r. appliecl bralies rvithout giving any indication:; oi siqnaJs ilt nigh L Itours to thc vel-ricles coming from thc r.zrr , ciLlt r() \ irl.h, titr, cje c:casecl r-ould rrot controi his carr ancl rirrtrnLcr.l irtto rhc iorr.r. frorn i1s l; c^l.: il.rd

¶41

lr\l^\1 \ :,,^r!1),,j. i

¶42

71 i.carncrl crtLut scl appcarine for the lletitioners fu-.'thcr r:olrrcndcrl tha,l Ii\/.1 influcrrcecl rtrc police ar-rd got I cgisterccl llrc cast, .rg.,1,11s, llrc de ccased and tl-rat thc Tribr-rnal ollght to h.r^. e con siclcrc ri l lrc clairn petition under Section 163 A of NI.V. A.lt as il iL is iilt'd i-rnci granted cornper-rsation to the petitioner s ,rs pr:n cd lirr irlrd that tl-re Tr-ibunal miserabll' lailed and ir{norc(l l o gr;ur t .ju st and reasonable compensation to the petitioners rrnclcr t hr: heads of loss of dependency, Ioss of consortrLrrr-r. loss oI r's1;r1('. loss ol love and affection etc., and pral'ed tr> lrl orr, 11rc rrprrr'rrr

¶43

l.z i.eanrcrl cot,n sll appea,ring for ttrt: petitioners rel1ed

¶44

upon thc f rlloNing lLrrlgr,r(.rts

¶45

1. ),Iational Insurance Compar,g Ltd. Radapa District Vs. Y.S. Madhaui Lathat.

¶46

1. )ad.i Komurduvct Vs. Garshe Buchaiahz

¶47

1. )?ajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh3

¶48

1. 'lhe judgment of the Hon'ble Suprente Court in trppeal (Ciuil) 6 oJ 2OO1

¶49

r'.t 8 i ,)n1,.. lr':tr-ned Counsr.l appearing for rr:sponclcnL '; .l^.-rrlrru r, rl that the clairrr petition is filcd undcr- Sr.r': otr lr)rr c,. \1.'. Act altd the Tribunal righth lr) il(-i \l I lr)ilr l \ll), lri \ )

¶50

¶51

\1,( \1 No l9r) ollt)ti

¶52

converted it inro Se ction 140 ol M.V. Act and granted compensation of Rs.50,000/_ under^,,No fault liability,, and needs no interference from thrs Coun and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶53

9 Heard both sidcs. perused the record.

¶54

l0 Before going to rhc aspect of the petitioners, contention as to their enlitlement for compensation under Section 166 of the M.\r. Act. it is appropriate to discuss the judgments reliecr Lrpon l,r. rhe lear.ed counser for the petitioners. In f.S. Madhavi Latha (first supra) it was held that the accident u.als not duc ro rash and r_regligent driving of R$/. I btrt onlr. l;ec.trrrse ol r hc, pirrking of the lorry negligently lor repairs r.r.ithout clispJar rng signal ligl_rts, and either the driver of the cleaner. cf thc lorr-i $ as not present at the time of the accident. The said juclgmcnt is not applicable as the facts on hand arc differcr-rt. [r.r tl,ris t.irsc. t]re lorry was moving at 40 KMPI{.

¶55

1 I . ln Garshe Buchaiah l:;trond srrpra). it is heicl that the contcn t s of thc I..ll{ or t}r. r.hiir g<:shr:r,t cannot be treated as con<:lusii'c proof ar;ci it ua,l ;rls,, rrt.rir that Lhe Tribr_rna-r nray treat thc aprpric:rtl.n c'e. .r-iii,.,, s('(.lro. 166 o[ trrc- Act as an

¶56

it\ l

¶57

ar)pirc.tio;r Iircrr uncr.r- scctioll 163-A arc ari.zrrrJ -lLrsr :rrrri l-e itstlt'iiLblC ( (rtnpcnsatr,,lt Thc object ol iltc Act is to a\.ai_c] jtrst ir.d i-:.;rsi)ltable contpcnsation to thc ciai,tants. i,lo clairn slr;rll br' r-(j('crcd nrcrcr.,.r'r the ground that rhe crerinr rs madc ur.rdc. t'c i.c.rrcct ser.tio, of law. Thc ultirnare objcr:t shor-rlcl irc io r-cndc.i- <:omplete ,iustice to the partie s. In thc pr-cscltt casr:, thc:,1 plication r'r'ar; filed under Section r66 of Lhc. M_V. Ar:t, Liut s rcc [hc acctdent occurred due to no fault of thc drir cr of tlrc lorn', the Tribunal rightl) au.arcled the conrlrr.nsarr<;n r-tnder Se<:1 ion 140 under no faull liabilitr. u_hich recltrircs rto ittcrfcrence from this Court.

¶58

It, Rajbir Singh (third supra) it u,zr_s helcl []rat cvcn trr tltc ('.1s(, oj^ sclf-em 1t lo.r.ed persons, the future l)t-ospcctts shor rlcl bc <:or-rsidered arrd the coml)()ltsat1()n unclt_r cor.rr. t'n Lio.i'l lrt'ads. Since this court in the abo'c palr.a caunc to tlrc ctonclLrsion that. the Tribunal had rightl-r, au.ar_clcci thc conrllcnsirii()i irnder Scction 140 under no lzLult liabilitr. thc quc,stion ol'tr,lLrrc, prosl)cc1s does rtot arise.

¶59

13 I I lirc rcsult. the M.A.C.M.A IS. clis rn i s.,L ri irr co.fir-,,t:q irr. .r.clcr a,ci clecree dated 12.12.1L, 1+ 1;i,:s.c1 ltr

¶60

¶61

u ( \1,\ ., r:, Ll⁾ i

¶62

tlrc Tribur-ral in O.P.No.642 ol 2012. There shall be no ordcr

¶63

AS IO COSTS

¶64

\4iscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shali stand

¶65

closcd

¶66

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTAUI REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY// ()D

¶67

SECTTON OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

The lr,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xl^{Additional DistrictJudge}

¶70

(Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.^(With Records^{if any)}

¶71

One CC to SRl. NAGESWARA^{RAO REPAKULA,Advocale} [OPUC]

¶72

3 One CC to SRl. N TMOHAN KRISHNA,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

4 1wo CD Copies

l)r

NJB -l)

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2710712023

-. ":::---
i irr' " -'
I
I ,\ rtl lst<br>I .J : o

¶79

JUDGMENT

¶80

MACMA.No.1390 of 2015

¶81

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A

¶82

.'.,-, I

¶83

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR} THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶84

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶87

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1390 OF 2015

¶88

Between:

¶89

Y.Vijaya Augustind, W/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, Age:51 years, Occ: Household.

¶90

Y.Hallelu Suzan, D/o. Late Y-B.Augustine, age: 29 years, Occ: Student

¶91

Y.Hallelua Sharon, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, age: 28 years, Occ: Student

¶92

Y.Maranath Evangilin, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine, age 27 years, Occ. Student Rl/o. H.No. 29-246 B.S.Nagar, Neredmet, Rangareddy District.

¶93

Y. Grate Cherishma, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustrne, age 25 years, Occ: Student

¶94

All are Fi/o. H.No.29-246 B.S.Nagar, Neredmet, Rangareddy District.

¶95

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶96

AND

¶97

1 V.Satyanarayana, S/o Not Known, Age: Major, Occ; Owner of the Vehicle pqgrlng .\O. AP 01 W 3909 Rt/o. H,No 1-105, cambhiraopet, Thiryani, Adilabad District.

¶98

2 ftangjlV^a1r.q9q!e,-S/o-^{Bhaurao Vairagade, Occ: Driver of the Vehicte bearing} No. AP 01 W 3909, Rio. H.No. 2-85, Bangatawada, Burguda, Asifabad, Adilabad District.

¶99

3 M/s. Cholamandalam MS General lns-urance Company Ltd., Rep. by its lvlanager, Head Office Dare House,2nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose R6ad, Chennai, Tamilnadu State, PIN 600 001 .

¶100

4 Y.Manna Roselin, D/o. Late Y.B.Augustine Occi Student, at^present she rs at Dorm-1, Room No. 523, Dalian Medical University,^gth Western Section, L.V. Shun South Street, L.V.Shun Kou Distrrct, Dalian;^p R. Chaina.

¶101

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶102

Appeal filed under Section 173 of l,4oror Vehictes Act , aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 12-12-2014 passed in Op.No. 642 ol 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.

¶103

These appeals coming on^for ltearing and upon^perusing the^Memorandumof Appeal, the c,rrler of the^{Lower Court} and the^{material papersin the case, and upon} hearing the arguments of^{Sri Y V JAYA} AUGUSTINE,^{for the Appellantsand SRI N} MOHAN KRIS lNA, Advocate^{lor RespondentNo.3and None Appeared for the} Respondent ro^{1,2 and4}

¶104

Decree: This Oourt Doth Judr]nrent and Decree^{as here under}

¶105