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

2014 Supreme(AP) 465

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
V. Narayana
Versus
Thadakapalli Durgaiah & Others
M.A.C.M.A. No. 27 of 2007
Decided On: 09-04-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R6, V. Narasimha Goud, R8, P. Harinath Gupta, Advocates.

There is a statutory liability to the third party under Section 147 read with Section 149 of M.V.Act.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 147 and 149-Death in accident-Liability of insurance Company---When death was result of trailer ran over on the deceased by the time the deceased was not traveling in trailer but being a third party on the road while the vehicle is in use to the extent that from -policy insurer is liable to indemnify insured, respondent-owner of vehicle that was driven by respondent subject to valid policy and contention of insurer in total negating of liability in factual matrix is untenable---Compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- awarded.

       Result-Appeal Partly allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed impugning the Order/Award dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.P No.70 of 2005 by the 2nd respondent, owner of the tractor and trailer AP 15 V 6453 & 6467 among driver no other than the owner of a saw mill and insurer of the claim filed by the parents, unmarried major sister and minor brother and minor sisters of the deceased bachelor by name T.Raju, for the claim filed of Rs.5,00,000/- since awarded by the tribunal of Rs.3,16,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, by exonerating the 3rd respondent insurer and fixing the liability against respondents 1 and 2 as unsustainable.

2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during hearing by counsel for appellant are that the tribunal erred in granting such a huge compensation; that the tribunal should have seen the deceased was not a passenger but an employee in the saw mill and engaged for transporting some wooden frames from saw mill and he was travelling in that connection and the insurer thereby liable to indemnify the risk and should have passed the award with joint liability on insurer also and hence to allow the appeal.

2(a) The 7th respondent to the appeal is the 1st respondent (in the claim petition) – driver of tractor and trailer-cum-owner of saw mill, having contested before the tribunal remained absent, despite served. Hence, taken as heard to decide on merits.

2 (b) It is the contention of the insurer-8th respondent (R3 in the claim petition) that the tribunal was just in exonerating the insurer for the deceased unauthorized passenger of the tractor and trailer and not a coolie much less travelling in connection with loading and unloading but for travelling in the goods carriage for going to Hanuman temple, Kondagattu and met with an accident while returning there from and thereby, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

2 (c) Whereas it is the contention of the counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 (claimants in the claim petition) that the tribunal was just in awarding quantum of compensation but for not fastening the liability on the insurer also for the deceased travelling as Hamali for loading and unloading apart from a third party at the time of the accident to consider the same by fixing the liability on the insurer also and for increasing the rate of interest.

2(d) Perused the material on record. The parties are being referred to as arrayed before the tribunal.

3. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the award of the tribunal exonerating the insurer is unjust so also the quantum of compensation and rate of interest and if so it requires interference by this Court while sitting in this appeal and with what observations and to what extent?

2. To what result?

4. Point No.1:

4 (a) The fact that the accident was occurred while the deceased along with others were travelling by sitting in the trailer propelled to the tractor, driven by 1st respondent on the fateful day i.e., 05.09.2004 and the deceased fell down from the trailer and was run over under the wheels is not in dispute for purpose of the appeal. It clearly proves the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, apart from any contributory negligence of deceased.

4 (b) Coming to the liability of the insurer, and status of the deceased while travelling in the vehicle concerned, among Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2 Charge sheet placed reliance by the claimants, said FIR is based on the report given by 1st claimant – father of the deceased by name Durgaiah i.e., PW1 showing the age of deceased about 25 years, un-married, that the deceased was working in the saw mill of 1st respondent, 1st respondent also was the driver of tractor and trailer and they went to have darshan of Lord Hanuman Temple, Kondagattu and while they were returning the accident was occurred due to his rash a














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
whatsapp-icon Back to top