Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 959 (AP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jannu Ram Babu

2024-08-05

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the Award, dated 07.06.2013, in M.V.O.P. No. 11 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for brevity “the Tribunal”) whereunder the Tribunal, allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent No. 1 herein/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of sustaining grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.12.2003 at 10.30 A.M. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that on 07.12.2003 the claimant and his brother viz. Jannu Srinivasa Rao intended to go to their house situated at Pochigani Lanka village from wharf and when they reached near 60 KM stone, one auto bearing registration No. AP 07X 8913 (hereinafter referred to, as “the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, came in opposite direction and dashed the claimant; as a result, the claimant fell on the road and sustained head injury with bleeding and lost conscious; the claimant was shifted to Saumya Apollo Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment; on 11.12.2003, Avanigadda Police recorded the statement of Jannu Srinivasarao and registered a case in Crime No. 169 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity “IPC”) and Section 134 (a) & (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”). The respondent No. 1, who drove the offending vehicle, holds valid driving licence and it was in force by the time of accident. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 and it was in force at the time of accident. The claimant was aged about 30 years and was doing banana sales business and supplies curry banana to Challapalli, Avanigadda and Vijayawada wholesale markets and earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- profit from his business. The claimant is married and his entire family members are depending upon his earnings; due to the head injury sustained by the claimant, his brother Jannu Srinivasa Rao was assisting him in service and accompanied with him in the hospital. The claimant is married and his entire family members are depending upon his earnings; due to the head injury sustained by the claimant, his brother Jannu Srinivasa Rao was assisting him in service and accompanied with him in the hospital. The claimant was inpatient for two months and the Doctor operated and treated the claimant’s brain, but he did not recover. The claimant spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards his medical expenses. Hence, the claim petition. 4. Respondent No. 1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter contending that as per Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, no risk on the part of the insurer commences unless the premium in full is paid in advance by the insured and as such, there is no liability on respondent No. 2. The accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the claimant as he was walking on the road in a zigzag manner and due to his confusion the claimant fell down under the auto. Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation unless and until it is proved that the person at the wheel was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The claimant has to prove that he was doing business of supplying curry banana to different places. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for inquiry: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle/auto bearing No. AP 07X 8913 by its driver/R1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay compensation and if so, to what amount and fro which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. During the course of inquiry, before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and got examined PW-2, Doctor, who treated the claimant. On behalf of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, RW-1 was examined and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1. 7. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the claimant awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation against the respondent Nos. On behalf of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, RW-1 was examined and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1. 7. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the claimant awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally and permitted the claimant to withdraw half of the compensation amount and interest thereon; and ordered to deposit the remaining half of the amount and interest thereon in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three (03) years. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent No. 2/insurer of the offending vehicle preferred the appeal. 8. Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal did not look into whether the person at the wheel was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. He submitted that without there being any basis therefor, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased which is on higher side, and the multiplier applied is not correct. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same. 9. On the other hand, Sri Y. Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 herein/claimant submits that the Tribunal rightly analyzed the evidence on record and recorded proper findings with regard to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and the crime vehicle was duly insured with appellant herein/ Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased and applied proper multiplier. The Award of the Tribunal is on correct lines and there are no grounds to interfere. Hence, prays to dismiss the M.A.C.M.A. 10. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point for determination is whether the Award, dated 07.06.2013 in M.V.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in awarding the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? 11. The claimant as PW-1, in his chief-examination, put-forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. During his examination, Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. 11. The claimant as PW-1, in his chief-examination, put-forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. During his examination, Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR; Ex.A2 is the attested copy of Wound Certificate; Ex.A3 is the attested copy of Charge Sheet; Ex.A4 is the Medical Bills (2) two in number; Ex.A5 is the Scanning Bills (3) three in number; Ex.A.6 is the bunch of hospital and pharmacy bills worth of Rs.84,185/- Ex.A7 is the CT Scan of Brain and Ex.A8 is the Discharge Summary. 12. PW-1 in his evidence deposed that he along with his brother Jannu Srinivasa Rao was going to his house situated at Pochagani Lanka and when they reached near 60 km stone, respondent No. 1/driver-cum-owner of the auto bearing registration No. AP 7X 8913 drove the auto in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed PW-1, resulting in head injury. In cross-examination, no suggestion is put-forth to PW-1 that due to his negligence, accident occurred. A perusal of Ex.A1 FIR would reveal that police registered a crime against respondent No. 1 and charge sheeted him alleging that the respondent No. 1 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant and which led him to sustain grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1, proves that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. 13. PW-2, Neuro Surgeon, who treated PW-1, deposed in his evidence that PW-1 obtained C.T. Scan and on examination, he found left capsule ganglinic bleed present and PW-1 was admitted and got treated. According to him, the injuries sustained by PW-1 are grievous in nature. 14. A perusal of evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is evident that PW-1 sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 15. On behalf of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, Senior Assistant in RTA Office, Tenali was examined before the Tribunal as RW-1. Through him, Ex.X1, extract of driving licence of respondent No. 1 was exhibited. 15. On behalf of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, Senior Assistant in RTA Office, Tenali was examined before the Tribunal as RW-1. Through him, Ex.X1, extract of driving licence of respondent No. 1 was exhibited. The said document reveals that respondent No. 1 is authorized to drive light motor vehicles and heavy transport vehicle. 16. It is the contention of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company that respondent No. 1 is not having valid driving licence. Ex.X1 shows that respondent No. 1 was holding valid driving licence to drive both transport and non-transport light motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle, but he did not possess valid driving licence to drive an auto-rickshaw. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal vs. Rajesh and Others, 2017 (8) SCC 590 held that “driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement.” 17. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident, is devoid of merit and force. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimant. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of PW-1 that he was doing banana sales business and earning a profit of Rs.5,000/- per month and his age as on the date of the accident is 30 years. As per the evidence of PW-2, the claimant sustained one grievous injury and it is difficult for him to earn anything towards his livelihood. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,39,000/- compensation towards loss of earnings, Rs.20,000/- compensation towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- compensation towards mental agony and in all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards just compensation. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and proper compensation amount for different heads as are permissible and it is not excessive as contended by the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. 19. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and proper compensation amount for different heads as are permissible and it is not excessive as contended by the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. 19. The Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition and at 12% per annum till the date of realization. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company would contend that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% is higher on side. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 2154 referred the judgment of its Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 14 SC 481 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court granted interest @ 9% p.a. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2001) 2 SCC 9 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 268 on the question of the rate of interest to be awarded it was held that “earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest but with a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered and the nationalised banks are now granting interest @ 9% on fixed deposits for one year.” 21. In the appeal on hand, the accident occurred in the year 2003. The rate of interest on bank deposits was found and held to be 9% per annum. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is appropriate to reduce the interest from 12% to 9% from the date of decree till the date of realization, as the same was prevailing rate of interest. Accordingly, this point is answered. 22. In the result, the Order and Decree, dated 07.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 11 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam is confirmed. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization. 23. With the above modification, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1810 of 2013 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization. 23. With the above modification, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1810 of 2013 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.