Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1040
2006 (6) ALT 806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
D.S.R. VARMA, J.
Ramesh Chand - Appellants
Versus
Pollagoni Venkanna and others - Respondents
C.M.A.Nos. 2638 of 1999 and 630 of 2001
Decided on 12-9-2006.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C.P. Sarathy, Senior Counsel for Smt. C. Jayashree Sarathy, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. M. Venkatram Reddy, (Not present), Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in CMA No.2638/1999.
Mr. P. Ramakrishna Reddy, (Not present), Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in CMA No.630/2001.
Mr. P. Harinatha Gupta, Counsel for Respondent NO.3.
Mr. Kakara Venkata Rao, Counsel-as Amicus curiae.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64-VB, 145 (b), Section 54-VB – Rash and negligent driving – Compensation – Aggrieved by order and decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District judge, allowing O.P., filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation to petitioners therein, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, for the death of one in a motor vehicle accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Car bearing registration fastening the liability only against respondent No.1 therein-owner of the said Car and exonerating the respondent No.2 from its liability, the owner/insured of the said Car has preferred the appeal C.M.A – Held, If really the insurer is not interested with the offer of the insured, the payment of money by the insured requesting for renewal, exercising its jurisdiction vested under sub-section (3) of Section 64 -VB of the Insurance Act, can be rejected and, in fact, could have been rejected by the insurer by refunding the same to the insured. But that did not happen – Renewal, as already noticed, is uninterrupted or continuation or extension of policy, which was in force though expired as on the date of posting of the letter coupled with the posting of cheque – Court is of a considered view that by the conduct of both parties, more particularly the conduct of the insurer in accepting and encashing the cheque and issuing a letter for renewal of policy to the insured would only indicate that the offer made by the insured had been accepted resulting in a concluded contract with binding force on both parties with enforceability from the last date of expiry of the existing policy –Appeals Allowed
Heard Sri C.P. Sarathy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. C. Jayashree Sarathy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri P.Harinatha Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent NO.3-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are inter-related and the accident being one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 31-07-1999, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District judge, Nalgonda (for brevity "the Tribunal NO.1") allowing O.P.No.250 of 1995, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the M.V. Act"), and awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners therein, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, for the death of one Pollagoni Laxmi @ Laxmamma (for brevity "the deceased No.1"), in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18-10-1994, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Car bearing registration No. AAM-889, fastening the liability only against respondent No.1 therein-owner of the said Car and exonerating the respondent No.2 therein-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited from its liability, the owner/insured of the said Car has preferred the appeal C.M.A.No. 2638 of 1999.
4. And, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 08-01-2001, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for brevity "the Tribunal No.2") partly allowing the petition O.P.No.481 of 1997, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, and awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as against the claim of RS.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners therein, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, for the death of one Bantu Bixam (for brevity "the deceased No.2"), in the very same accident, fastening the liability only against the respondent No.2 therein owner of the said Car and exonerating the respondent NO.3 therein-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited from its liability, the owner of the said Car has also preferred the appeal C.M.A.No.630 of 2001.
5. In both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, appellant is the owner of the Car, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the claimants and respondent No.3 is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, in the O.Ps., before the Tribunals, respectively.
6. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties will be referred to as "the insured", the claimants", and "the insurer," respectively.
7. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal Nos.1 and 2 that on 18-10-1994 at about 2 p.m., when deceased Nos.1 and 2 along with some others were waiting at Uppalapadu Bus stage on National Highway NO.9 to go to Cherukupally and Nakrekal, respectively, the driver of the Car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed them, due to which both the deceased Nos.1 and 2 sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants filed the said O.Ps., before the Tribunal Nos.1 and 2 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards compensation.
8. The driver of the Car, who is respondent NO.1 in O.P.No.481 of 1997, remained ex parte before the Tribunal No.1.
9. The insured filed two separate counters in the O.Ps., before the Tribunal Nos.1 and 2 denying the averments in the said O.Ps., and alleging that on 07-10-1994 he sent a sum of Rs.168/- (Rupees one hundred and sixty eight only) by way of cheque under certificate of posting for renewal of the policy to the insurer and the policy was issued on 22-1 0-1994; that the policy being renewed, it is deemed to be a continuing policy and as the accident said to have occurred on 1
