ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, J.
V. Jayageetha – Appellant
Versus
Apsrtc – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2203 of 2016
Decided On : 31-10-2022
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - VIOLATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF POLICY - ROUTE PERMIT - PERMANENT DISABILITY - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a housewife and tailor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of a bus hired by the 1st respondent, APSRTC, from the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent was the insurance company that had insured the bus. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9, 13, 740.00 to the appellant, holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver and that the 2nd respondent was liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also held that the 3rd respondent was not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in holding that the 3rd respondent was not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The Court found that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the 3rd respondent was jointly and severally liable along with the 2nd respondent for the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the 3rd respondent was liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent for the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the 3rd respondent was not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal erred in holding that the 3rd respondent was not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The Court found that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the 3rd respondent was jointly and severally liable along with the 2nd respondent for the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the 3rd respondent was not liable to pay the compensation. The Court held that the 3rd respondent was jointly and severally liable along with the 2nd respondent for the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the compensation amount with interest within one month from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the award dtd. 14/6/2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.9, 13, 740.00 with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the lower Court.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") claiming compensation of Rs.12, 00, 000.00 on account of the permanent disability and injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 9/3/2012 while the petitioner was travelling in APSRTC hire bus bearing No.AP 03Y 8996 from Appalayagunta to Tirupati and at Krishna Stone Crusher on Puttur - Tirupati road the petitioner fell down from the running bus at a curve, under the jurisdiction of Vadamalapet Police Station.
4. The facts of the case show that on 9/3/2012 at about 11.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in the APSRTC hire bus bearing No.AP 03Y 8996 from Appalayagunta to Tirupati, and when the said bus reached near Krishna Stone Crusher, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the petitioner fell down from the running bus and sustained crush injury on her left chest. Immediately she was taken to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati by 108 Ambulance.
On receipt of the statement of the injured, a case in Cr.No.12/2012 under Sec. 338 of IPC was registered by Vadamalapet P.S., against the driver of the bus and subsequently, after conducting investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against him on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur.
The injured was aged about 43 years and she was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The petitioner is a house wife and she was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.3, 000.00 p.m., and contributing the same to her family. From 9/3/2012 to 22/3/2012 she was treated in the said hospital and again on 29/3/2022 she was admitted in the same hospital as the injury to upper left chest was not healed. Subsequently, on the advice of doctors, she was admitted in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore on 3/4/2012, where on examination the doctors found that there was a large irregular ulcer measuring about 30 x 10 cm., in the anterior chest wall extending from the midline to the left anterior chest wall laterally, supero inferiorly from left infraclavicular region to the supramammary region. There was dusky discoloration around the circumference of the ulcer. The margins were clearly demarcated and necrotic material with purulent discharge. On palpation, there was increased warmth and tenderness. The base was indurated extending from the infra mammary, supraclavicular regions and to the shoulder. The doctors at C.M.C. Hospital operated the petitioner viz., (1) Anterior chest wall debridement and left mastectomy on 3/4/2012; (2) Redebridement of the anterior chest wall on 8/4/2012 and emergency tracheostomy was done on 9/5/2012 and she was there in the I.C.U. for three days. Later, her wound was found to have fungal growth in few areas of the debrided wound, fungal culture had grown Mucormycosis. The wound became unhealthy and she needed a redebridment. The petitioner was receiving nebulisations for persistent wheeze. The petitioner became tachypnoea with respiratory alkalosis. Further, there was sudden onset upper airway obstruction secondary to the generalized oedema with laryngeal oedema she developed probably due to hypoalbuminemia. Her saturation again dropped and she was shifted back to SICU for ventilation. She was given frequent nebulisations and then the respiratory symptoms improved. Portex tracheostomy tube was converted into a metallic
K.S.R.T.C. and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd
The insurance company is liable to pay compensation for an accident involving a vehicle hired to APSRTC, as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The negligence of a driver can warrant vicarious liability from the employer, and the burden of proof for accidents is based on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the importance of proving the driver's a....
The liability of the owner and insurer in accidents involving motor vehicles, and the entitlement to compensation in the absence of fault or negligence on the part of the driver.
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.