IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.
Chitluru Sreelakhsmi, W/o. Late Chinna Veeraiah and ors. – Appellants
Versus
N.Vijay Kumar, S/o. Rama Naidu and ors. – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.2644 of 2011
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Pay and Recovery – Claim Compensation – Illegality or infirmity – Licence for non-transport vehicle – Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses respectively – Sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Held, Therefore, having failed to consider judgments cited above, Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation payable to claimants in support of reliance upon decisions rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in matters stated supra by applying aforesaid principles to case on hand as referred above, it would be just and proper to issue a direction to 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to first pay award sum to claimants and then recover the paid award sum from the owner of alleged offending vehicle – Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the judgment and award dt.10.05.2011 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore in M.V.O.P.13 of 2006 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.2,97,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the claim till the date of realization of the amount, against the 1st respondent by exonerating the 2nd respondent i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited on account of the death of Chitluru Chinna Veeraiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in the road accident occurred on 02.09.2005 at Katavaralla Centre, Uyyalapalli, Nellore District.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").
3. The factual context of the case is as follows:
(b) The wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased in the said road accident.
(c) The 1st respondent/owner of the auto did not choose to file counter and did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending inter alia disputing the alleged motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. The 2nd respondent has no liability to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioners unless it was proved that the insurance policy was in operation on the date of occurrence and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly registered and further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased himself and further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and excessive.
(d) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto AP 26 W 6652 or due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased?
(2) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as pleaded by the 2nd respondent?
(3) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much amount and against which of the respondents?
(4) To what relief?
(e) At the time of enquiry, in order to establish their claim, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. None were examined on the side of the 1st respondent/owner and no documentary evidence was adduced. On behalf of the Insurer, R.W.1 was examined and
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another
A valid light motor vehicle license includes transport vehicles, and insurers cannot deny liability without proving negligence by the vehicle owner.
A driver holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of the same class without any separate endorsement, as per the settled legal position.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.