Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 101 (AP)

Golla Lakkam Kristaiah v. V. Subba Rao

2002-01-29

G.ROHINI

body2002
G. ROHINI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26-2-1993 in OP No. 242 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:the appellant herein filed OP No. 242 of 1989 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 22,000. 00 for the death of 15 sheep belonging to him in a motor accident. It is the case of the appellant that on the intervening night of 10/11-3-1989 the appellant and another person by name Golla Pottipadu Suryudu were taking 600 sheep to Yerraguntapalli village after grazing and that when they were near Peddavanka culvert, the lorry bearing No. APA 8793 came from Tadipathri side in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and ran over the sheep resulting in the death of 5 sheep on the spot apart from causing injuries to 10 sheep, which also died subsequently. The appellant contended that he incurred Rs. 1,000. 00towards medical expenses and other miscellaneous expenses for getting the injured sheep treated at the Veterinary Hospital, Tadipathri and that each sheep died in the accident is worth Rs. 1,000. 00. Accordingly he claimed a total compensation of Rs. 22,000. 00. ( 3 ) THE other persons Gotta Pottipadu Suryudu, who accompanied the appellant at the time of the accident claimed that 20 sheep belonging to him also died in the said accident and filed OP No. 241 of 1992 seeking a compensation of Rs. 30,000. 00. Both OP Nos. 241 of 1992 and 242 of 1992 were clubbed and tied together by the Tribunal below. ( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contested the said claim petitions by filing counters denying the ownership of the claimants and further stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimants by allowing the sheep to come on to the public road. The Insurance Company also denied the allegation that the lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The contention of the appellant that he spent Rs. 1,000. 00 towards treatment and that each sheep is worth Rs. 1,000. 00 was also disputed. The Insurance Company also denied the allegation that the lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The contention of the appellant that he spent Rs. 1,000. 00 towards treatment and that each sheep is worth Rs. 1,000. 00 was also disputed. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the said pleadings, the Tribunal below settled the following points for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No. APA 8793 belonging to the 1st respondent?2. Whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation and if so what quantum and from which of the respondents?3. To what relief? ( 6 ) THE appellant got himself examined as PW 2 and the claimant in OP No. 241 of 1992 was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal below. Exs. A1 to A29 documents were marked in support of their claim. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal below, on appreciation of the evidence on record, found on issue No. 1 that the claimants also contributed to certain extent for the occurrence of the accident, and in the circumstances, estimated the contribution of the claimants in causing the accident at 25 per cent. So far as the issue regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal below relied upon Ex. A4 wound certificate issued by the Veterinary Doctor and Exs. A5 to A29 postmortem certificates. On the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal below held that it is established that 15 sheep belonging to the appellant herein died in the accident. Further as per the estimate of the Veterinary Doctor the Tribunal below has taken the value of each sheep at Rs. 500/- and accordingly determined the cost of 15 sheep belonging to the appellant at Rs. 7,500. 00. However in view of the finding that the appellant contributed 25 per cent negligence in causing the accident, the Tribunal below deducted 25 per cent out of Rs. 7,500. 00 and awarded Rs. 5,625. 00 towards compensation for the death of 15 sheep belonging to the appellant. Apart from that, the Tribunal below awarded Rs. 1,000. 00 towards medical and other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the appellant. Thus a total sum of Rs. 6,625. 00 was awarded as compensation in OP No. 242 of 1989. 7,500. 00 and awarded Rs. 5,625. 00 towards compensation for the death of 15 sheep belonging to the appellant. Apart from that, the Tribunal below awarded Rs. 1,000. 00 towards medical and other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the appellant. Thus a total sum of Rs. 6,625. 00 was awarded as compensation in OP No. 242 of 1989. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26-2-1993 the claimant has come up with the present appeal contending that the Tribunal below ought to have awarded compensation of Rs. 22,000. 00 as claimed by him. ( 8 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the Tribunal below that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is not supported, by the evidence on record and that at any rate the compensation awarded is too low. The leaned Counsel contends that on proper appreciation of evidence on record the appellant is entitled to compensation as claimed in the claim petition. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the Insurance Company while submitting that the order of the Tribunal below does not warrant any interference, contended that as per Section 95 (2) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted to Rs. 6,000. 00 in respect of damage to any property of a third party and therefore the compensation cannot be awarded exceeding Rs. 6,000. 00. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the instant case since the excess amount awarded by the Tribunal below is only a meagre sum of Rs. 6,625. 00 the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal and that in the circumstances of the case the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) SECTION 95 (2) (d) of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1939 runs as under:"95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:-- (1 ). . . . . (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely:- (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . (c ). . . . . Requirements of policies and limits of liability:-- (1 ). . . . . (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely:- (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . (c ). . . . . (d) irrespective of the class of the vehicle, a limit of rupees six thousand in all in respect of damage to any property of a third party. " ( 12 ) THE extent of liability of an Insurance Company under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been considered by the Apex Court and it has been held that the liability of the insurer is limited as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also (vide National Insurance Company v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1988 SC 719 and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, AIR 1998 SC 1433 .) ( 13 ) AGAIN in New India Assurance Company Limited v. C. M. Jaya, 2002 AIR SCW 259; a larger Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question relating to the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on a reference made in New India Assurance Company v. C. M. Jaya, 1999 (2) SCC 47. After reviewing the entire case law on this question the Appellate Court while holding that there is no conflict in the earlier decisions of two Benches in Shanti Bai s case and Amrit Lal Stood s case (supra), observed that in the said decisions there is consistency on the point that in case of an insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium the liability of the Insurance Company is neither unlimited nor higher than statutory liability fixed under Section 95 (2) of the Act. Accordingly the larger Bench approved the view expressed in Shanti Bai s case and answered the reference at para-11 of the judgment as under:"in the case of Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95 (2) of the Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount. ( 14 ) THUS the question relating to the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is no longer res integra. In the instant case, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company states, that the insurance policy does not cover higher liability in respect of damage to the property of third party. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the same. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of any damage to the property of a third party shall be only to the extent of Rs. 6,000. 00. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation on appreciation of the evidence on record. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, I do not find any gourd to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal below is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs.