Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 820 (AP)

Y. S. Murthy v. S. Prasad

2025-07-04

V.SUJATHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : V. SUJATHA, J. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 09.03.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Tanuku whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,96,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and dismissing the claim petition against respondent Nos.3 to 6, this instant appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking to allow the claim petition as against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 also. 2) For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3) The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 4) The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: The claimant is a lorry cleaner by profession and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month. On 06.12.2011 he boarded the lorry of respondent No.1 bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373 at Parvathipuram as lorry cleaner as the regular cleaner availed leave on that day and when the said lorry reached near Nataraj Daba, Gajapatinagaram petrol bunk, the said lorry hit a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 31 TW 5559 owned by respondent No.5 and driven by respondent No.4 and could not observe the stationed lorry and hit the same on its rear side which was negligently parked on the road without any indication of parking and therefore, he sustained injuries and fractures and became disabled, thereby he is not in a position to attend his works as usual. Therefore, he filed the claim petition for compensation. 5) Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373. Respondent No.4 is the driver, respondent No.5 is the owner and respondent No.6 is the insurer of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 31 TW 5559. 6) Respondent Nos.1,2, 4, and 5 remained ex parte. 7) Respondent No.3 – insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373 filed its counter contending that the petitioner has to prove his age, income, disability and medical expenditure. 6) Respondent Nos.1,2, 4, and 5 remained ex parte. 7) Respondent No.3 – insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373 filed its counter contending that the petitioner has to prove his age, income, disability and medical expenditure. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is not a cleaner and he is unauthorized passenger in the lorry AP 16 TB 3373 and allowing the passengers in the lorry is nothing but violation of terms and conditions of policy and requested to dismiss the petition. 8) Respondent No.6 – insurer of stationed lorry bearing No.AP 31 TW 5559 contended that the petitioner has to prove his age, and negligence on the part of driver/respondent No.4 and income of petitioner. It is further contended that the police filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 only after due investigation, this fact shows that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.4, therefore, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and requested to dismiss the petition. 9) Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident, dt. 06.12.2011 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? (3) Which of the respondent is liable to pay compensation? (4) To what relief? 10) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 11) Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by respondent No.1 only. 12) Issue Nos.2 and 3 also answered in favour of the claimant and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable to pay compensation to the claimant and awarded Rs.4,96,000/- under different heads towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said finding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable to pay compensation, exonerating respondent Nos.3 to 6, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. Aggrieved by the said finding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable to pay compensation, exonerating respondent Nos.3 to 6, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 13) Learned counsel for the appellant – claimant contended that the stationed vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TW 5559 which was parked without proper care and caution is also responsible for the accident where the plying vehicle bearing No.AP 16TB 3373 hit consequently the appellant – claimant received injuries and sustained loss. Even if the conclusion of the Tribunal below that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 is accepted, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation against respondent Nos.1 to 3, but the Tribunal erroneously held that respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1 and requested to allow the appeal. 14) Learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 – insurance company contended that the Tribunal below rightly arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify respondent No.2, which need not be interfered with by this Court. Further, on the date of incident, the claimant travelled in the lorry driven by respondent No.1 as an unauthorized passenger, and Ex.B.1 policy issued by respondent No.3 does not cover the unauthorized passenger, therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and requested to dismiss the present appeal. 15) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?” 16) I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. To prove the manner of accident, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1. During evidence, P.W.1 deposed that he went to Parvathipuram to see his father and on 06.12.2011, respondent No.1, who is his friend, requested him to render his services as cleaner as the regular cleaner absented from duties, accordingly he boarded the lorry of respondent No.1 bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373 and while their lorry was proceeding, at about 01.00 a.m. when their vehicle reached near Nataraj Dabha of Gajapatinagaram, their vehicle hit another stationed lorry bearing No.AP 31 TW 5559 owned by respondent No.5 which was parked on the road in a negligent manner by respondent No.4 without any indication of parking, because of which he sustained injuries. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A.1 – copy of FIR and Ex.A.5 – copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373. 17) As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was travelling in the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373 as an unauthorized passenger. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 ” has categorically held that the insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. Therefore, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. 18) In “ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (referred above) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of unauthorized passengers held as follows: “Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with Sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of Sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. The said provision must be read with Sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of Sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading.” 19) As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment (referred supra) even if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimant and then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the vehicle). This ensures that the rights of the third-party victim are protected and it was emphasized that insurance policies are statutorily required to protect third parties, and even in cases of breach by the insured, the insurer's liability towards third-party victims does not vanish immediately. 20) In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the claimant before the Tribunal would substantially prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 - driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 3373, wherein the claimant was travelling. In view of the same and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the contention of respondent No.3 – insurance company that it cannot be directed to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. 21) The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,96,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 22) In view of the above discussion, while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Tribunal only to the extent of directing respondent No.3 – insurance company to pay the compensation to the appellant – claimant and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 23) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed directing respondent No.3 – Insurance company to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,96,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation to the claimant, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and then recover the same from the insured-owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.2) by filing Execution proceedings before the Tribunal. No costs. 24) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.