Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1203 (AP)

Branch Manager v. Kummari Rani

2024-08-27

V.SRINIVAS

body2024
JUDGMENT : (V. Srinivas, J.) : This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.152 of 2010 dated 19.03.2014. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 13N 7835 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife and children of one Kummari Sekhar Roofus @ Sekhar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively. The respondent No.4 is the owner of the said crime car. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.AP 7TU 7939 (hereinafter referred to as “lorry”) respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 10.04.2009, at about 03.00 a.m., while the deceased along with family proceeding towards Vijayapuri South in crime car, on the way near IBP Petrol Bunk, near Indira Nagar of Dachepalli, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the steering and hit the backside of the lorry, resulted, the deceased, who sit in the left front seat, died on the spot. ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime car as well as the owner and insurer of the lorry. 5. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime car filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, who parked the vehicle without putting the rear lights and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. 6. The respondent No.4/insurer of the lorry filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car; that the charge sheet also filed against the driver of the crime car; that the claimants have no cause of action to file petition against this respondent and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of 1) Tata Indica car bearing No.AP 13N 7835 2) Lorry bearing No.AP 7TU 7939? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom? and 3. To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were exhibited. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver and that there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.4 policy by the owner of the said car, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,85,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till 21.01.2011 and from 21.06.2012 to till the date of realization against the respondent No.1, for the death of the deceased in the accident. As well directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the said compensation at first instance and then recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing execution petition. 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime car. 11. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime car, Sri K.Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants and Sri S.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent No.6/insurer of the lorry. 12. 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime car. 11. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime car, Sri K.Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants and Sri S.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent No.6/insurer of the lorry. 12. Sri Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery, when there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, but not driver of the crime car and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 13. Sri K.Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants and Sri S.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent No.6/insurer of the lorry submits that the tribunal after considering the material on record rightly awarded compensation to the claimants as well rightly ordered pay and recovery by the appellant, there are no valid grounds urged to interfere with the order of the tribunal and thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of crime car as well lorry in the incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the claimants as well as the insurer of the lorry did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 16. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery when there is violation of policy conditions by the owner of the said car. 17. It is not in dispute that the insurer of the car issued Ex.B.4 policy towards private car as well and no premium was paid to cover the risk of passengers who are travelling in a private car. Even as per the testimony of P.W.2, during cross examination, he hired the car for charges fixed at Rs.5.50/- per km. Thereby, the owner of the car clearly violated the terms of policy by running the car as if transport vehicle. 18. Even as per the testimony of P.W.2, during cross examination, he hired the car for charges fixed at Rs.5.50/- per km. Thereby, the owner of the car clearly violated the terms of policy by running the car as if transport vehicle. 18. Now, it is relevant to refer a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr.Singh, 2017 (4) SCC 796 , AIR 2017 SC 1204 , wherein at paragraph No.17 and 21 held as follows: “17. The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Paul’s case (supra) also having held that the victim was “gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the Insured in the same proceedings. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) - they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Company-respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo)-respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted supra.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In view of the above settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal can direct the insurer to reimburse the compensation at first instance and then recover the same from the owner, if there are any violations of terms and conditions of the policy issued to the vehicle concerned. Thereby, the tribunal by elaborately discussing the said aspect, rightly ordered pay and recovery of compensation by the insurer of the crime car to the claimants. This Court has no valid reason to interfere with the said finding arrived at by the tribunal. 20. Thereby, the tribunal by elaborately discussing the said aspect, rightly ordered pay and recovery of compensation by the insurer of the crime car to the claimants. This Court has no valid reason to interfere with the said finding arrived at by the tribunal. 20. Coming to the rash and negligence is concerned, it is the categorical finding made by the tribunal under issue No.1 that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 established that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver. Even on perusal of material on record, no tenable material placed on record to fastened any liability or negligence against driver of the lorry. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 21. It is needless to say that regarding the calculations made by the Tribunal as well quantum of compensation awarded, no tenable grounds urged by the appellant, thereby, this Court need not interfere with the said conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. 22. Thereby, viewing of any angle, this Court does not find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 23. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.