Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 444 (AP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chintha Lakshmamma

2025-03-10

V.SRINIVAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District at Nellore (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2018 dated 04.05.2022. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Swift Dezire Car bearing No.AP 26 BG 8778 (hereinafter referred as “crime car”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife and children of one Chintha Venkata Ramana Reddy (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the driver and owner of the said crime car. 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 14.12.2017 at about 03.50 p.m., while the deceased being pillion rider along with one Valluru Ramana Reddy proceeding on Honda Activa Scooty bearing No.AP 26 DC 0763 and when they reached Gandhisangam, Gundalammapalem, the 1 st respondent being driver of the crime car driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said two wheeler in opposite direction, resulted the deceased and rider of the scooty fell down under a pulsor motorcycle, which was coming its behind, and sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, on the intervening night of 15/16.12.2017 at about 04.00 a.m., the deceased was succumbed to injuries. ii). The deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing rice business and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime car. 5. The respondent No.2/owner filed counter, which was adopted by the respondent No.1/driver, denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime car was validly insured with the 3 rd respondent/insurer; that the accident occurred was due to negligence on the part of the rider of the scooty, but not 1 st respondent; that the owner and insurer of the scooty are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. 6. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is collision between both the vehicles, thereby, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the scooty; that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the death of the deceased was caused in Motor Vehicle accident due to rash and negligence of driver of car bearing No.AP 26 BG 8778? 2. Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of scooty in accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? and 4. To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3/insurer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the crime vehicle by its driver/1st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.11,90,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 10. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle. 11. Heard Sri B.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 12. Sri B.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that there is contributory negligence in causing the incident, thereby, the non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the two wheeler, vitiates the entire case; that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 13. 12. Sri B.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that there is contributory negligence in causing the incident, thereby, the non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the two wheeler, vitiates the entire case; that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 13. Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants submits that the Tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle; that the Tribunal rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the well-articulated order of the Tribunal, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, on which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider by the date of incident, in causing the incident, if so, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the said two wheeler? 2. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and 3. To what relief ? 15. POINT NO.1 On this point, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of the crime car as well motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling by the time of incident. 16. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent in driving the crime car, the claimants got examined P.W.2, who is rider of the said two wheeler. He categorically testified that on 14.12.2017, while they were proceeding on Honda Activa Scooty and when they reached Gandhisangam, Gundalamammapalem, the 1 st respondent being driver of the crime car, driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the two wheeler in opposite direction, resulted they fell under a pulsar motorcycle and received severe injuries. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. 17. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. 17. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.5 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 1st respondent. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.5 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 1 st respondent. 18. Furthermore, the 1 st respondent is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimants, but he did not choose to enter into witness box even he made appearance before the Tribunal by filing counter. Thereby, it is clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 1 st respondent, which requires no interference and no contributory negligence attributed against P.W.2 in causing the incident. 19. It is also the contention of the appellant/insurer that the non-joinder of owner and insurer of the two wheeler is fatal to the case of the claimants. 20. In view of the discussion made supra, it is categorical that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver and no contributory negligence attributed against P.W.2 in causing the incident. Thereby, there is no requirement for the claimants to make the owner and insurer of the said two wheeler as parties to the proceedings in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited , [ (2015) 9 SCC 273 ] , wherein it was categorically observed that “The owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver, and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them.” 21. Thereby, the contention of the appellant that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties has no legs to stand. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 22. The claimant may implead the owner, driver, and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them.” 21. Thereby, the contention of the appellant that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties has no legs to stand. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 22. POINT NO.2: Coming to the just compensation is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants. 23. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants relied upon the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.6 and they claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month by doing rice business. The testimony of P.W.2 shows that the deceased as well P.W.2 are doing rice business and the deceased used to purchase rice bags from his mill and they are doing wholesale business. He also testified that the deceased used to supply nearly 180 bags to the consumers and earn Rs.250/- on each bag. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.2 also shows that the deceased was doing rice business by the date of his death. 24. By considering the above said facts, the Tribunal rightly taken the monthly income of deceased at Rs.20,000/- and by following the renowned pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, [2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC)] deducting the personal and living expenses, adding future prospects and by applying suitable multiplier to the age of the deceased, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded just compensation of Rs.11,90,000/-, when the claim is made for Rs.15,00,000/-, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly. 25. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference in any way, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer is liable for dismissal. 26. 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.