Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 955 (AP)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yennana Subbarao

2023-07-03

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellant is the third respondent in M.V.O.P.No.788 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada and the respondents are the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in the said case. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 19.10.2004. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows : On 19.10.2004, the petitioner took his daughter Mangatayaru to a hospital at Kakinada on his cycle, while they were returning and when they reached Rayudupalem centre at 3.00 p.m., the driver of auto bearing No. AP 5Y 7453 coming from Pithapuram towards Kakinada, came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and with high speed, dashed the cycle of the petitioner, resulting which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP 5Y 7453 by its driver, the 1st respondent therein, resulting injuries to the petitioner? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. 8. If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.29,000/- to the claimant towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the third respondent filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT :- On considering the evidence of PW1 and on considering the other evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A3 attested copy of Charge Sheet also support the case of the claimant. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 clearly proves the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto, resulting which the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above finding given by the Tribunal. 12. It was held by the Tribunal in its order that the offending vehicle is insured with third respondent Insurance company under Ex.B1 and the policy is also in force by the date of accident. As per the evidence produced by the Insurance company, the driver of the offending vehicle is authorized to drive Light Motor Non-transport Vehicle and the driver of the auto is not authorized to drive the auto rickshaw Transport. RW2, who is the Junior Assistant working in Regional Transport Authority Office, deposed that the driver of offending vehicle possessed driving licence for LMV non-transport and a separate endorsement is required for auto rickshaw and the driver of the auto did not possess the same. 13. In a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. RW2, who is the Junior Assistant working in Regional Transport Authority Office, deposed that the driver of offending vehicle possessed driving licence for LMV non-transport and a separate endorsement is required for auto rickshaw and the driver of the auto did not possess the same. 13. In a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited, 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008 held that ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not exclude from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amended Act No.54/1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that: The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act.54/1994 w.e.f., 14-11-1994 while substituting classes (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the afore said substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(20)(e) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that: The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continuous to be the same as it was and has been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle or such class without any endorsement to that effect.” Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the driving licence of 1st respondent is sufficient to drive the crime vehicle/auto. Therefore, objection taken by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company cannot be accepted. 14. Here with regard to the transport and non-transport driving licence, the Government of India addressed a letter to all the Principal Secretaries and DGP’s of all the State Governments vide letter dated 16.04.2018 vide RT-11021/44/2017-MVL. Therefore, objection taken by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company cannot be accepted. 14. Here with regard to the transport and non-transport driving licence, the Government of India addressed a letter to all the Principal Secretaries and DGP’s of all the State Governments vide letter dated 16.04.2018 vide RT-11021/44/2017-MVL. In the said letter, the Government of India clearly stated that in compliance of the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited: In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment, the requirement under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain the transport licence would arise in case of medium/heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to following vehicles: i. Motor cycle without gear ii. Motor cycle with gear iii. Light Motor Vehicle (goods/passenger) iv. e-rickshaw/e-cart Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the first respondent is having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle/auto on the date of accident. Since the crime vehicle is insured with the third respondent/Insurance Company, the third respondent/Insurance company is also liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 15. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury and an amount of Rs.2,000 for one simple injury, in total, an amount of Rs.17,000/- was awarded under the head of injuries. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.29,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioner under all the Heads. The award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and there are no merits in the appeal filed by the third respondent. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.