Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
New India Assurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Peerupilli Appa Rao - Respondent
M.A.C.M.A No. 1668 of 2010, 2261 of 2013, 1161 of 2012, 1670 of 2010, 1675 of 2010
Decided On : 15-06-2020
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - INSURANCE - VIOLATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT. 1. Contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle was fixed at 25% and on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle was fixed at 75%. 2. The insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners and recover the same from the insured by following the procedure prescribed under the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. The petitioners in MVOP No.738 of 2006 are entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.11,55,375/- (Rupees eleven lakh fifty five thousand three hundred and seventy five only). 4. The 3rd petitioner in MVOP No.739 of 2006 is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.4,78,350/- (Rupees four lakh seventy eight thousand three hundred and fifty only). 5. The petitioner in MVOP.No.1397 of 2006 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand and five hundred only).
Fact of the Case:
The case involves multiple motor vehicle accidents that occurred on 13.10.2005, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to another. The accidents were caused by a van driven by the 1st respondent, who was not in possession of a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The insurance company of the van, the 2nd respondent, disputed their liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the van was 75% responsible for the accident, while the rider of the motorcycle was 25% responsible. The court also held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, but could recover the same from the insured. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the tribunal, taking into account the future prospects of earnings of the deceased and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in MVOP.No.1397 of 2006.
Issues: 1. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle alone was responsible in causing the accident or whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AG 2190? 2. Whether the award of the tribunal fastening joint liability on the insurer with insured to indemnify the insured for the petitioners requires interference by this Court in light of the alleged violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Anjaiah and ors, (2004) 4 ALD 444 and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Abdul Salam, (2003) 2 LW 75 to hold that triple riding on a two-wheeler is prohibited and that the rider of the motorcycle was discomforted by reason of allowing two pillion riders and thus contributed to the accident. 2. The court relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Premkumari & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Dev & Ors., (2008) 1 Scale 531 to hold that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, but could recover the same from the insured. 3. The court relied on the decisions in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 6 ALD 170 and Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) ACJ 12 (SC) to hold that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was not just and reasonable and enhanced the same.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the petitioners and recover the same from the insured. The court also enhanced the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
JUDGMENT
Battu Devanand, J. - Macma NO.1668 OF 2010:
This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited i.e., 2nd respondent in MVOP.No.738 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam (for short "the tribunal") against the decree and order dated 23.06.2010 disputing their liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. Macma NO.2261 OF 2013:
This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in MVOP.No.738 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam against the decree and order dated 23.06.2010 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
3. Macma NO.1670 OF 2010:
This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited i.e., 2nd respondent in MVOP.No.739 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam against the decree and order dated 23.06.2010 disputing their liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
4. Macma NO.1161 OF 2012:
This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in MVOP.No.739 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam against the decree and order dated 23.06.2010 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
5. Macmano.1675 OF 2010:
This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited i.e., 2nd respondent in MVOP.No.1397 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam against the decree and order dated 23.06.2010 disputing their liability.
6. All these appeals arises out of the same motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.10.2005 involving the Van bearing No.A.P.31 U 1033 and the respondents in all M.V.O.Ps are one and the same. In view of the same, all these appeals are disposed of by common order.
7. The parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal.
8. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) The case of the petitioners is that one Peerupilli Prasad along with his wife and his niece-minor girl, was proceeding on Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.31 AG2190 on 13.10.2005 at about 6-30 hours, they started from Bheemili and proceeding towards Tagarapuvalasa to purchase cashew nuts there and when the motor cycle reached near Rayapalem, the Van bearing No.A.P.31 U 1033 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle") belonging to the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased, his wife and his niece fell down and sustained injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The wife of the deceased while undergoing treatment in the hospital died and his niece sustained injuries. A case in Crime No.307 of 2005 was registered by Bheemili police for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC.
b) As per the averments made in claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.738 of 2006, the petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents and 3rd petitioner-minor daughter of the deceased i.e., Peerupilli Prasad. The age of the deceased was at the time of the accident 28 years and was working with Lalkar Marine Pvt. Ltd., as Fitter and Welder and his work for a period of six months was on ship and the remaining six months he was at home and he was drawing monthly salary of 500 US dollar, apart from he was doing over time. Earlier to the accident he boarded on Lalkar Marine Pvt. Ltd., Company Ship for six months and returned home after completion of voyage and while waiting for the next call, he met with an accident. As the petitioners are dependants of the deceased, they filed claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents.
c) As per the averments
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
