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

2014 Supreme(AP) 797

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ANIS, J.
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Cuddapah. - Appellant
Vs.
Acchigari Prasad and two others - Respondents
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPAL No.3453 of 2004
Decided on : 25.07.2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Muddu Vijay
For the Respondents:Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri for Respondents 1 and 2.

Important Point—
Motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving licence.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 173—Motor insurance—Driving licence—Death in accident—Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by Tribunal—Accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tipper—Driver was not holding any driving license of his own— Motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving licence—Tribunal rightly held that Insurance Company is liable to satisfy decree along with owner—But, owner has obligation to take adequate care and see that driver had appropriate license to drive vehicle—Appellant/second respondent directed to first pay awarded amount to respondents/petitioners and then recover the same from owner of vehicle.

       

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/second respondent under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the award dated 25.05.2004, passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah, in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2001, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. The respondent Nos.1 & 2/petitioners filed the above O.P under Section 166 of the Act read with Rule 476 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the death of their daughter Harathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.

3. The brief averments made in the petition are that the deceased was aged about three years and was studying nursery in Don Bosco English Medium School, Cuddapah, and on 18.08.2000 at about 4:30 p.m, while she was coming from school along with her teacher, one tipper bearing No.AIK.244 belonging to the first respondent came in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the deceased causing her severe injuries and she succumbed to the said injuries and therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.1,00,00/- as compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex parte.

5. The brief averments made in the counter filed by the second respondent are as follows:

The second respondent put the petitioners to prove the manner of accident, age of the deceased and stated that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper and further stated that the girl aged about four years suddenly crossed the road on account her confusion and the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid driving license and that the claim of the petitioners is high and excessive and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues and to substantiate the claim, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the contesting respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 & B2 got marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AIK.244 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a to the petitioners against both the respondents.

8. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent preferred the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was aged about 3 years and studying in nursery and the compensation awarded to the petitioners is totally high and excessive. Further, the driver of the tipper has no driving license and the license possessed by him under Ex.B2 belongs to other person and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed the Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2/petitioners argued that the petitioners lost their daughter, who was studying nursery in Don Bosco School and the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly awarded compensation against the appellant/second respondent and the owner of the tipper, which needs no interference by this Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the only point which is to be decided in this appeal is as follows:

Whether the appellant is entitled for setting aside the award dated 25.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2001 or not?

12. The appellant/second respondent claimed that when the deceased was coming













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