Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 19 (AP)

G. saravanan v. Rajendra Pinnapareddy

2025-01-02

V.SRINIVAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.14 of 2016 dated 29.03.2018. 2. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TB 8289 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively. 3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 23.05.2015 at about 08.00 a.m., while the deceased proceeding on the left side of Chittoor to Tirupati road, near G.V.G.Kalyana Mandapam, Murakambattu village, the crime lorry driven by the 3 rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the deceased from his behind, resulted he sustained severe bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Chittoor, in turn, shifted to C.M.A. Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. ii). He incurred Rs.7,00,000/- towards treatment, transport and attendant charges. Thereby, he claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the owner, insurer and driver of the crime lorry. 4. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the respondent No.3 is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident in question caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP 26 TB 8289? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?” 6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.11 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to and X.1 to X.8 were marked. 7. 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?” 6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.11 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to and X.1 to X.8 were marked. 7. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3 rd respondent, held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 3 only, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claim against respondent Nos.2 is dismissed due to violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 policy in the absence of driving license to the 3rd respondent by the date of incident. 8. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant. 9. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/insurer 10. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that even the 3 rd respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant/3 rd party at first instance then recover the same from the insured, when Ex.B.1 policy is in force by the time of incident. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ] 11. Now, the short point that arises for determination is “whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant/3rd party in the absence of valid driving license to the 3 rd respondent/driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident?” 12. POINT It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of crime lorry, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver in causing the incident, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.1. POINT It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of crime lorry, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver in causing the incident, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.1. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the insurer and owner of the crime lorry against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. It is also categorically proved before the Tribunal that the 3rd respondent, who is driver of the crime lorry, is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry by the time of incident. Thereby, the insured violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 policy. 14. Now, to decide the above point, it is relevant to refer the certain pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited,2018 LawSuit(SC) 722 , wherein it was held that “where the driver did not possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third party risks….. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle.” 15. It is also required to refer another Three Judge Bench pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram v. Nirmala, [ AIR 2018 SC 1290 ], wherein it was categorically held at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 that: “8.In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a license which was found to be fake. Another license which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as owner had failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. 9.In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 16. 9.In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 16. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun case ( referred to supra ), by referring and relying on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.Paul, [ (2013) 2 SCC 41 ] , categorically observed at paragraph Nos.15 and 21 that: “15…..This Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of “pay and recover. 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 Co. Ltd. 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) 17. Having regard to the above categorical precedents, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is benevolent legislation and Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the time of incident, a direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimant at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner/1st respondent, because as stated supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 3 rd respondent/driver, resulted the claimant sustained injuries. 18. 18. Now, coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated and awarded compensation entitled by the claimant on the heads of medical expenses, pain and suffering, transport and for stay in CMC Hospital as well M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Neuro Sciences, Bangalore, thereby, which does not require any interference. 19. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding liability to pay the compensation by the insurer at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of crime lorry. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the respondent No.2/insurer is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimant/appellant at first instance and then recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner by filing execution petition. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.