SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(AP) 1088

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ELIPE DHARMA RAO
Andhavarapu Kamaraju - Appellant
Versus
Thammineni Seetharam - Respondent
Decided On : 11-26-99

Headnote:

Indian penal Code , 1863 - Sections 337, 338 and 304 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149 , 95 , 141 , 140 , 92 and 95 – Accident - Fastening liability of decretal amount - Appreciate contentions raised by both counsel, a few facts of cases are narrated as deceased persons and others who were students boarded lorry bearing so as to go over to Visakhapatnam to attend a meeting and on next day they boarded same lorry to reach and in early hours they reached and respondent driver drove lorry in a rash and negligent manner and when lorry crossed and was proceeding towards junction at National Highway lorry turned to left side of road in a rash and negligent manner and again to right side of road and some of persons travelling in lorry sustained injuries and deceased persons died on spot - Driver of vehicle escaped from scene of accident - On information one of injured persons, Station House officer, Town-11 Police Station, registered a case in Crime and transferred same to j. R Police Station on point of jurisdiction, which was again numbered as Crime - Deceased persons in all original petitions were all teenager students and, therefore, claimants, who are their parents filed claim petitions claiming a sum ranging from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,25,000 for untimely death of their sons – Held , Learned counsel for appellant owner has relied on judgments to support his contention that insurer is liable to indemnify insured in respect of amounts awarded by Tribunal, when he has not violated terms and conditions of policy – But Court sorry to comment that in those cases, issue decided was that burden of proof lies on insurance company to prove that owner has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy covering vehicle - When there is an obligation on insured to appoint driver, who has a valid driving licence, to drive vehicle and insured has appointed a driver having a valid driving licence and that driver entrusted vehicle to a person who does not have a valid driving licence to drive vehicle and caused an accident, in such of those cases, burden lies on insurance company to prove that with knowledge of insured-owner of vehicle, vehicle was entrusted to driver, who had no valid driving licence, therefore, insured has wilfully breached conditions of policy - Therefore, insurance company is entitled to claim benefit of exclusion clause for payment of compensation, court held that burden lies on it to prove same - Therefore, decisions relied on by learned counsel for appellant insured owner are not applicable to facts of instant cases - There is prohibition in transporting passengers in a goods vehicle, contrary to terms and conditions of insurance policy, when owner himself has given vehicle on hire, receiving hire charge of Rs. 2,000 from volunteers of democratic Students Organisation, he has unilaterally violated terms and conditions of insurance policy - Therefore, he alone is liable to pay compensation awarded by Tribunal below – Appeals dismissed

DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) CIVIL Miscellaneous appeal Nos. 1528, 1581, 1529 and 1538 of 1997 were filed by the owner of the vehicle bearing No. APS 4237, the respondent No. 2 in the original petitions, bearing nos. 194, 161, 246 and 28 of 1991 respectively, involved in the accident assailing the finding of the learned Chairman (Addl. Distt. Judge), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, fastening the liability of the decretal amount, excluding a sum of rs. 25,000 from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, ordered to be paid by the insurer, the appellant in Civil miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1922, 2267, 1825 and 1974 of 1997 respectively, under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the untimely death of the deceased persons, in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 8. 12. 1990 at about 3. 30 p. m. when the deceased and others who were students, boarded the said lorry. The deceased persons travelled in the said lorry to attend the meeting at Visakhapatnam. After attending the meeting they boarded the same lorry to reach Srikakulam on the next day in the early hours, the respondent No. 1, driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it turned turtle.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by both the counsel, a few facts of the cases are narrated as under: on 8. 12. 1990 at about 3. 30 p. m. the deceased persons and others who were students boarded the lorry bearing No. APS 4237 so as to go over to Visakhapatnam to attend a meeting and on the next day they boarded the same lorry to reach Srikakulam and in the early hours they reached srikakulam and the respondent No. 1 driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and when the lorry crossed budhumuru and was proceeding towards chilakapalem junction at about 7. 00 a. m. on the National Highway No. 5, the lorry turned to the left side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and again to the right side of the road and some of the persons travelling in the lorry sustained injuries and the deceased persons died on the spot. The driver of the vehicle escaped from the scene of accident. On information given by Singuru Ramanarao, one of the injured persons, the Station House officer, Town-11 Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 277 of 1990 under sections 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian penal Code and transferred the same to j. R. Puram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction, which was again numbered as Crime No. 160 of 1990. The deceased persons in all the original petitions were all teenager students and, therefore, the claimants, who are their parents filed the claim petitions claiming a sum ranging from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,25,000 for the untimely death of their sons.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2, insured of the crime vehicle, filed written statement stating that the lorry at the relevant time was insured with the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 1 had a valid driving licence, that the driver was neither negligent nor rash in driving the vehicle and it was an unexpected event which occurred due to the bad conditions of the road and in spite of diligent driving of the respondent No. 1, the accident occurred and, therefore, the engineering Department of the National highway is liable for not keeping the road in good condition as a result of which the accident occurred. As such the petitioners claimants should have made claim against the Government. He, however, admitted that the Democratic Students Organisation has taken the vehicle from the respondent no. 1 without his knowledge and consent and the vehicle was involved in the accident. As such the owner is not liable to pay the compensation. As the crime vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 for third party risks and the deceased in all the cases are third parties, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner in the event of fastening of any liability on the insured. He denied that the deceased persons were brilliant students and their age. H




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top