Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 540 (AP)

Mukku Jyothi v. Syed Uddandu Saheab

2025-03-27

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) is filed by the appellants/claimants impugning the order dated 27.04.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Principal District Judge, Eluru in MVOP.No.619 of 2010. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Eluru Seshu Mahesh Babu, the learned counsel on behalf of Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, the learned counsel for respondents. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri M. Sri Hari Reddy was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. AHK 2466 and his wife Smt. M.Jyothi was the pillion rider. A lorry bearing registration No. AP TV 0567 is stated to be the offending vehicle. On 29.07.2009 near Pothuru village collision took place between these two vehicles and in that Sri M. Sri Hari Reddy died and his wife sustained some injuries. The brother of the deceased lodged written information on the same day and FIR was issued as per Ex. A1. The wife and mother of the deceased filed MVOP.No.619 of 2010 under section 166 of the MV Act for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was R1. The owner was R2. The insurer was R3. Before the learned claims tribunal, the driver and owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter denying the narration of accident as mentioned in the claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that the death of Sri M.Sri Hari Reddy was out of his own negligent act as his motorcycle went and dashed a vehicle going ahead of it. It prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Learned claims learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the Motor Vehicle accident on 29.07.2009 near Pothuru on N.H.5 Road opposite Jaya Spin Pipes Company, arose on account of negligence of R-1/driver of Lorry bearing Number AP 16 TV 0567, resulting death of deceased Mukku Sri Hari Reddy? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 and RW.1 and 2 and Exs. A1 to A9 and Ex. B1 and B2 were placed for consideration. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 and RW.1 and 2 and Exs. A1 to A9 and Ex. B1 and B2 were placed for consideration. After detailed analysis of the evidence on record, learned claims tribunal stated that claimants made out a case for compensation under the following heads. ? Towards loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/- ? towards loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- ? towards loss of estate Rs.4,000/- Thus, a total compensation that could be awarded was 4,66,000 and 7.5% interest was found to be appropriate by the learned claims tribunal. However, it stated that there was absolutely no fault on part of the offending lorry. The entire fault was on part of the deceased himself. Therefore, it held that the claim under section 166 of the act failed. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim. 6. Aggrieved by it, claimants preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the evidence of PW.1 and 2, who were the eyewitnesses, clearly established the fault on part of the offending lorry, and the learned claims tribunal committed grave error in failing to appreciate the facts. Since the first claimant/ first appellant was unconscious for 14 days, she could not lodge the FIR within time. Learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned award and grant compensation as prayed for. 7. As against it, the learned counsel for respondents made valiant arguments stating that with appropriate reasons, facts were considered and concluded by the learned claims tribunal and it rightly dismissed the claim and no interference is required in this appeal. 8. During the course of hearing, one of the questions that came up for consideration was since death in the vehicle accident is an established fact on record and even if the deceased was responsible for the accident and consequential death, whether the legal representatives could make a claim for that amount of compensation as is mentioned in section 140 and 141 of the MV Act. Learned counsel for appellants despite availing opportunities did not cite any rulings. On the other hand, learned counsel for R3/ insurance company cited National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Manda Vijayalakshmi, [AIR Online 2017 HYD 66]. Learned counsel for appellants despite availing opportunities did not cite any rulings. On the other hand, learned counsel for R3/ insurance company cited National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Manda Vijayalakshmi, [AIR Online 2017 HYD 66]. In the cited ruling, the learned Judge had referred to the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and stated that in those cases where the conditions of insurance policy were breached and in the event of granting compensation in terms of sections 140 and 141 of the MV act, the law does not permit fastening liability on the insurance company. However, since in that case, the appeal was filed by the insurance company and by virtue of an interim order, a part of the compensation was already deposited the further order was made to the effect that insurance company could recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. The following points fall for consideration in this appeal. 1. Whether the evidence on record established that the death of Shri M.Sri Hari Reddy was out of rash or negligent driving of lorry bearing number AP TV 0567 by its driver and learned claims tribunal committed error in reaching to an opposite conclusion? 2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled to any amount of compensation in terms of section 166 or sections 140 and 141 of the MV Act? Point No.1 10. The very brother of the deceased on the very day of accident went to the police station and lodged written information and Cr.No.250 of 2009 was registered for the offences under sections 337 and 304A IPC by Guntur Police Station. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of the FIR. The contents of Ex. A1 are that deceased drove his motorcycle and dashed the offending lorry on its back side. This crime was investigated into by the police and they lodged Ex.B1 memo before the competent court. This disclosed that the deceased was responsible for his own death. The investigation disclosed that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. Since the accident took place because of negligent driving of the motorcycle, and since the driver of the motorcycle died, the crime case stood abated. That was what was presented to the competent court trying the crimes and that became final. Ex. A9 is a newspaper clipping dated 30.07.2009. Since the accident took place because of negligent driving of the motorcycle, and since the driver of the motorcycle died, the crime case stood abated. That was what was presented to the competent court trying the crimes and that became final. Ex. A9 is a newspaper clipping dated 30.07.2009. It reported the event that took place on the preceding day/ 29.07.2009. As per this newspaper report, during broad daylight, the motorcycle was driven rashly and it dashed on the back of a lorry, resulting in death of the motorcycle driver. Ex. A4 is the copy of wound certificate of the pillion rider/ wife of the deceased. This indicated simple injuries to her body. It did not show that she was unconscious when she was taken to the hospital on the date of the accident. No evidence was brought on record from the doctors indicating that for a period of 14 days, as mentioned in the claim petition, the wife of the deceased/ first claimant and who deposed as PW.1 was unconscious for 14 days. Learned claims tribunal made extensive analysis of the evidence and concluded saying that the contention of the claim petitioner that the offending lorry came in the opposite direction and dashed their motorcycle was false, and in fact, the motorcycle proceeded in the same direction in which the lorry was proceeding, and the lorry was in motion, and it was not stationed, and the motorcyclist dashed on the rear side of it. Thus, it is a case where known falsehood was pleaded by the claimants. From the evidence on record, it is difficult to sustain the contention of the claimants. The evidence of RW.1 and 2 and investigate outcome of the police and the very version of the brother of the deceased also disproved the case set out in the claim petition. Therefore, the findings of the learned claims tribunal that the fault did not lie with the driver of the offending lorry shall be approved as correct. Hence, the point No.1 is answered against the appellants. POINT No.2 11. Since the claim was filed under section 166 of the MV act and since the fault was not proved on part of the driver of the offending vehicle, fastening liability on the driver, owner and insurance company does not arise. The tortfeasor is deceased himself. Hence, the point No.1 is answered against the appellants. POINT No.2 11. Since the claim was filed under section 166 of the MV act and since the fault was not proved on part of the driver of the offending vehicle, fastening liability on the driver, owner and insurance company does not arise. The tortfeasor is deceased himself. The question then is whether in terms of sections 140 and 141 of the MV Act, Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability can be granted to the appellants. Assuming that could be granted, the question is about liability of the insurance company to pay compensation first and recover later from the owner falls for consideration. In view of the ruling of this court referred earlier, such fastening of liability on insurance company is impermissible. Therefore, R3/ insurance company cannot be held liable for anything. Then the only question is about fastening liability on R1 and R2. It is made clear that the claimants did not raise a claim under sections 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, in this regard, one may have to notice what was held by a learned Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Ravela Yohanu, 2009 (5) ALD 647 (AP) "Respondents 1 to 3 have invoked Sections 140,163-A and 166 of the Act in their claim petition. They did not realize that those provisions are mutually exclusive of each other and a petition cannot be filed, invoking all those provisions. Section 140 provides for payment of a lump sum amount without the necessity to examine the question of negligence or fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. In the case of death, a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000/- is to be awarded. Section 163-A of the Act, on the other hand, provides for award of compensation as per Schedule II and here again, it is not necessary to prove any act of negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. Section 166 of the Act provides for compensation, which is not limited to any of these factors. Section 166 of the Act provides for compensation, which is not limited to any of these factors. It is relevant to take note of Section 163-B which reads as under: “163-B. Option to file claim in certain cases:—Where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both.” The claimants pleaded known falsehood before the claims tribunal. Since the deceased himself was found at fault, the claim of claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall fail as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ashalata Bhowmik, [ (2018) 9 SCC 801 ] In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, it has not been urged to consider the claim under sections 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, even against respondent Nos.1 and 2, nothing need be ordered. Hence, this point is answered accordingly. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.