Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd - Petitioner
Versus
K. Latha Ramesh & Ors. - Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1234 of 2013
Decided On : 23-03-2023
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - VIOLATION OF POLICY CONDITIONS - DRIVER WITHOUT LICENSE - LIABILITY OF OWNER - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - POWER OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, K. Ramesh Reddy, was riding a scooter with his son Pradeep Kumar as a pillion rider when they were hit by a tempo vehicle driven by the cleaner of the 1st Respondent. Pradeep Kumar died on the spot, and Ramesh Reddy died later in the hospital. The claimants, Ramesh Reddy's wife, daughter, and mother, filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,87,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., against the Respondents, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company (2nd Respondent) appealed the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurance company since the accident was caused by the cleaner, who did not have a driving license, and that the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the cleaner to drive the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurance company. The Court noted that the cleaner of the offending vehicle caused the accident by driving the vehicle without a valid driving license. The Court also noted that the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest the proceedings of the M.V.O.P. and this appeal. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of only Rs.17,87,200/- and enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,88,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurance company? 2. Whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal was just and reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurance company because the accident was caused by the cleaner of the offending vehicle, who did not have a valid driving license. The Court also noted that the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest the proceedings of the M.V.O.P. and this appeal. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of only Rs.17,87,200/- and enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,88,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. The Court noted that the claimants were entitled to a 10% enhancement of conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and awarded the claimants compensation of Rs.18,88,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. The Court also directed the appellant/2nd respondent/insurer and the 4th Respondent in appeal to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs within one month from the date of receipt of the Judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.627 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal'), the National Insurance Company Limited rep., by its Branch Manager, Tirupati, who is the 2nd Respondent in M.V.O.P. preferred this appeal questioning the Award passed by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on it.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of the death of K. Ramesh Reddy ( hereinafter be referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.04.2007 at 11.15 AM on Renigunta-Tirupati main road at Patel Wood Works.
4. The claimant's case is that on 23.04.2007, the deceased, as a rider and his son Pradeep Kumar as a pillion rider, were proceeding on their Scooter bearing No.ATC 6262, when they reached Patel Woodworks at Tirupati at about 11.15 AM, the 1st Respondent's Tempo Vehicle got insured with the 2nd Respondent bearing No.AP 03-U-5612 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the offending vehicle'); its driver drove it rashly and negligently without due care and caution and dashed the deceased's Scooter on its behind and after that dashed the motorcycle bearing No.AP03-S-7830 proceeded in the same direction. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries, and Pradeep Kumar died on the spot due to the severe injuries sustained. Immediately, the deceased got shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati; he died on the same day at 1.00 PM while undergoing treatment.
5. The first Respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.
6. The 2nd Respondent filed a counter, admitting the accident and denied the other averments and contended that, as per the version in the claim petition, three vehicles were involved in the accident. The claimants filed the case against the owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle and not impleaded the owner and insurer of the other two vehicles. The 2nd Respondent reliably learnt that the deceased had driven the Scooter in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the offending vehicle and, after that, the motorcycle and caused the accident, who was not having a driving licence and insurance for the Scooter and that the 2nd Respondent denied all other allegations and the claimants should put to strict proof of the same including driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, insurance and 1st Respondent was not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The amount claimed is excessive.
7. The 2nd Respondent filed additional counter alleging that the police filed a charge sheet under section 304-A of I.P.C. and section 3 r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is clear that the cleaner dove 1st Respondent's vehicle at the time of the alleged accident, who has no driving licence; as per the latest Supreme Court decision, for the violation of policy conditions, insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation and the owner of the vehicle alone liable to pay the same.
8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 got examined and marked Ex.B.1 copy of the policy.
9. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver and on account of which the deceased died and granted compensation of Rs.17,87,200/- with interest at 7.5 % p.a., against the Respondents, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
10. I have heard the le
The owner of a vehicle is liable for the negligence of his driver, even if the driver is not licensed.
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
