Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 988 (AP)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. A. Kalyani

2023-07-05

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGEMENT: V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. Questioning the legal validity of the impugned order dated 24.01.2012 of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, passed in M.V.O.P.No. 331 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos.2 and 3, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance company. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition. 3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rules 455 and 475 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of M. Anand, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and son of the 5th petitioner, in a road accident that took place on 01.08.2006. 4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows: On 01.08.2006 at 11.00 p.m. the deceased along with some other persons were traveling in a mini lorry bearing registration No. AP 03T 7697 with a load of Brinjals in the capacity of owner of the goods from Kalenjeri to Chennai and as the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control over lorry and thereby applied the brakes suddenly. As a result of which, the lorry fell down and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, he succumbed to injuries. In connection with the said accident, a case in crime No. 45 of 2006 of Nagalapuram P.S. was registered against the driver of the lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 and 279 IPC. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 being owners and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 3rd respondent was set ex-parte. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident and age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that prior to the accident, he sold the offending vehicle to the 3rd respondent and the ownership of the vehicle was also got transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident and age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that prior to the accident, he sold the offending vehicle to the 3rd respondent and the ownership of the vehicle was also got transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the policy does not cover the risk of the passengers traveling the offending vehicle and the deceased was not the owner of the goods. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act? If so, to what amount? (2) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted an amount of Rs.4,87,000/- with costs and interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. The appellant/Insurance company mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing liability on the Insurance company without taking into consideration that the deceased traveled in the offending lorry as an unauthorized passenger, and that the Tribunal also erred in granting excess amounts under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of amenities’. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 12. POINT: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The occurrence of the accident is not at all disputed. 12. POINT: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The occurrence of the accident is not at all disputed. The evidence of P.W.1, who is wife of the deceased, goes to show that her husband was traveling in the offending lorry by carrying Brinjals for selling them at Chennai. P.W.1 filed certified copy of first information report under Ex.A.1 and certified copy of charge sheet under Ex.A.2. In Ex.A.1 itself there is a clear mention that the deceased was traveling in the offending lorry with a load of Brinjals as owner of the goods. The evidence of P.W.1 corroborated with Exs.A.1 and A.2 is sufficient to believe that the offending lorry was loaded with Brinjals and the deceased is one of the owners of the load in the lorry. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company that there is violation of the conditions of Ex.B.3-policy because the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. 14. As stated supra, as per Ex.A.1-FIR, the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. The evidence of P.W.1 also goes to show that the deceased was traveling in the offending lorry as owner of the goods. In view of the same, the contention of the Insurance company that the deceased was traveling in the offending lorry as a gratuitous passenger, is not sustainable. Ex.B.1-B-register of the offending vehicle shows that the 3rd respondent purchased the vehicle from the 1st respondent. Ex.B.2-transfer certificate of policy discloses that the policy was transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. As per the evidence of R.W.1 also, the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. Ex.B.3 is a copy of insurance policy and it was obtained by the 1st respondent. Ex.B.2-transfer certificate of policy discloses that the policy was transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. As per the evidence of R.W.1 also, the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. Ex.B.3 is a copy of insurance policy and it was obtained by the 1st respondent. The material on record clearly goes to show that the 3rd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.3-policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the 3rd respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. On considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal warrants no interference. 15. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,87,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is excessive. The accident occurred in the year 2006. In those days, an ordinary coolie can earn Rs.75/- to Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,400/- @ Rs.80/- per day i.e., Rs.28,800/- per annum. Since the dependants on the deceased are five in number, 1/4th from out of annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If it is so deducted, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.21,600/- (Rs.28,800/- - Rs.7,200/-). The deceased was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident. So, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘16’, as per II Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.3,45,600/- (Rs.21,600/- x multiplier ‘16’). In addition to that, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In all, an amount of Rs.4,05,600/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioners. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In all, an amount of Rs.4,05,600/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioners. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 331 of 2007 is modified by reducing the compensation of Rs.4,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.4,05,600/-. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.