Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 135 (AP)

Kurasala Pulla Rao v. Kovvuri Sai Rama Reddy

2025-01-23

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT: 1. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 an injured claimant impugns the award dated 09.08.2012 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tanuku in MVOP.No.691 of 2009 to the extent of absolving the insurance company from liability. 2. The offending vehicle is Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle bearing registration number AP 05 R 3356. Respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the said motorcycle. He got it insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited/ R3. On the fateful day, this motorcycle was driven by R1. 3. The appellant/injured claimant was a small time seller of plantain clusters earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. On 08.05.2009, he was going on his bicycle and at about 10.30 pm, R1 drove the offending motor cycle rashly or negligently on NH 5 road and dashed the bicycle and as a result of it, the appellant fell down and the motor cycle ran over his left leg and crushed it and as a result, the appellant’s lower part of the left leg was amputated and he also suffered some more injuries in this accident. In terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he made a claim for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The driver of the motor cycle and the owner of the motor cycle did not choose to contest the claim. The Insurance company/ R3 raised its contest denying all the facts and contended that at the material point of time, the driver of the motor cycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and the owner of it negligently entrusted the same and therefore the insurance company could not be made liable. 4. Considering the rival pleadings, the learned claims tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident dated 08.05.2009 occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 05 R 3356 by the respondent No.1? 2. Whether the 1 st respondent was having valid and effective driving licence to drive Motor Cycle at the time of accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? 5. To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the injured claimant, PW.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? 5. To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the injured claimant, PW.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 6. The subject matter accident was registered as Cr.No.59 of 2009 for the offence under section 338 IPC as per Ex.A1 which is the attested copy of FIR. It was duly investigated into by the police and as against the driver of the offending motor cycle a charge sheet was laid and Ex.A4 is its attested copy. The driver of the vehicle was charge sheeted for the offences under section 338 IPC as well as section 3 read with section 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the evidence of the injured and the investigative reports of the police, the claims tribunal concluded that the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle by R1. 7. Besides the evidence of injured/ PW.1, there was on record evidence of two doctors/ PW.2 and 3 and Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A6 bunch of medical prescriptions and Ex.A7 bunch of medical bills and Ex.A8 x-ray films and Ex.A5 disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, West Godavari District, Eluru. All that evidence was considered in detail by the learned claims tribunal. It found that because of the amputation of leg, the claimant suffered 60% working disability. The income of the claimant was notionally assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and thus, Rs.36,000/- per annum and his age was found to be 42 years and the relevant multiplier 14 was applied and accordingly, Rs.3,02,400/- was arrived at towards his loss of earning capacity. It granted Rs.2,000/- towards his transportation charges and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards damages to clothes and articles and Rs.60,000/- towards his actual medical expenses. It also granted Rs.18,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, a total of Rs.4,22,400/- was assessed as just compensation and the same was awarded with 9% interest from the date of petition. It fastened liability on the owner and driver of the offending motor cycle. 8. It also granted Rs.18,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, a total of Rs.4,22,400/- was assessed as just compensation and the same was awarded with 9% interest from the date of petition. It fastened liability on the owner and driver of the offending motor cycle. 8. There was a keen contest about violation of insurance policy conditions specifically with reference to availability or otherwise of any driving licence for the driver of the offending motor cycle. The insurance company examined one of its officers as RW.1 and got examined the owner of the offending motor cycle as RW.5. During examination of RW.5, he was asked about the driving licence of R1 who drove the motorcycle at the relevant point of time. He responded saying that he verified the driving licence of the driver and then entrusted the motor bike. However, he was unable to produce the driving licence or a copy of it. RW.1 produced Ex.B4 which was a letter dated 10.11.2009 addressed by the insurance company to the owner of the motor cycle demanding him to produce a copy of the driving licence of R1. It was received by the owner as evidenced by Ex.B6 postal acknowledgment. The evidence of RW.1 remained undisputed that the owner failed to furnish a reply and failed to submit a copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending motor cycle. On facts it was found undisputed that the driver was prosecuted for driving the vehicle without a driving licence. The investigation officer who was a Sub-Inspector was summoned on behalf of the insurance company and he testified as RW.2 and through him the vehicle check report was marked as per Ex.B3. The insurance company also examined an officer of Road Transport Authority and he testified as RW.3 and produced Ex.X2 and stated that it was on 14.10.2009 the driving licence was issued in favour of Sri K.Sai Ram Reddy/ R1/ the driver of the offending motor cycle. Their evidence was that prior to that no driving licence was issued to R1. The insurance company through Ex.B3 proved that compounding fee of Rs.1100/- was also collected for driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Their evidence was that prior to that no driving licence was issued to R1. The insurance company through Ex.B3 proved that compounding fee of Rs.1100/- was also collected for driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Thus, on facts the learned claims tribunal arrived at a conclusion that R1 did not possess any valid driving licence on the date of accident/ 08.05.2009. It further found that the driver obtained a driving licence months after the crime incident and that does not alter the situation. 9. In the context of above referred facts, the question that falls for consideration before the claims tribunal was as to the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation. Both sides cited legal authorities before the claims tribunal and after considering the ratios in those decisions, the learned claims tribunal took the view that in those cases where the driver had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, the liability could not be fastened to insurance company. It was in that view of the matter it passed the award in the following terms “In the result this petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,22,400/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 2 months and on such deposit petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00.000/- and the balance shall be kept in term deposit for a period of 2 years. This petition against 3rd respondent is dismissed with costs. The petitioner shall pay the difference of court fee for an amount of Rs.72.400/-. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-“ 10. In the present appeal, the only contention raised before this court is about not fastening liability on the insurance company. 11. Heard arguments of Sri T.Sai Surya, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri P.Bhaskar Narasimha Murthy, the learned counsel for respondent No.3. 12. The point that falls for consideration is: “ Whether the impugned award is erroneous in absolving insurance company from paying compensation ?” POINT: An automobile is inherently dangerous. Therefore, every road user may encounter a risk from such automobiles. Therefore, as a measure of social security, law has mandated an insurance cover for third party risks. 12. The point that falls for consideration is: “ Whether the impugned award is erroneous in absolving insurance company from paying compensation ?” POINT: An automobile is inherently dangerous. Therefore, every road user may encounter a risk from such automobiles. Therefore, as a measure of social security, law has mandated an insurance cover for third party risks. Essentially a policy of insurance is a contract between owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company. Every insurance policy is issued subject to certain conditions. Where substantial violations of policy conditions occurred usually insurance company claims waiver of liability. The owner of the vehicle is always obliged to see that the automobile was used by a person possessing valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, before entrusting the vehicle to anyone to drive, he was required to make due enquiries about the existence or otherwise of driving licence by the driver of the automobile. If the owner failed to exercise that care and caution and entrust the vehicle to one who did not possess any driving licence, then the conduct of the owner is stated to be negligence. When there was negligence on part of the owner, the insurance company refuses to indemnify the loss caused due to the automobile. A road user being a third party to the automobile as well as insurance policy suffers an injury for no fault of him. Then the question is whether the insurance policy should operate and the insurance company be directed to indemnify and pay compensation to the third party. In the case at hand, existence of valid insurance policy for offending vehicle at the relevant date of accident is undisputed. It was also found as a fact that the driver of the offending vehicle/R1 did not possess any driving licence. It was also found as a fact that there was amputation of left leg below the knee for the claimant making him permanently disabled. In those cases where a subject matter accident caused permanent disability to a third party, the question to be considered is whether the insurance company could be directed to pay first and recover later from the owner of the vehicle. It is in this regard, learned counsel for appellant cited Parminder Singh V. New India Assurance Company Limited , [ AIR 2019 SC 3128 ]. In a collision between two trucks Parminder Singh suffered serious injuries and became permanently invalid. It is in this regard, learned counsel for appellant cited Parminder Singh V. New India Assurance Company Limited , [ AIR 2019 SC 3128 ]. In a collision between two trucks Parminder Singh suffered serious injuries and became permanently invalid. Drivers of both the offending trucks were found driving without any driving licence at the material point of time. It was in that context, their Lordships after referring to precedent stated that it is just and fair to direct the insurance company to pay compensation and thereafter, recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the trucks. Nothing contrary is cited before this court. In view of the ruling of their Lordships, this court is of the view that in a case of the present nature similar benefit should be extended to the appellant/claimant. No other contentions are urged before this court. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Respondent No.3/ Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Limited as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable. The amount of compensation and the rate of interest and other directions prescribed in the impugned award are upheld. Insurance company/ respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amounts along with interest within a period of two months from the date of this order. It is made clear that R3/ Insurance company is entitled to execute this award and recover the amount from the owner/R2 and the driver/R1. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, each party shall bear their own costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.