ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
T.Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
N.B. Santhamma – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 310 of 2013
Decided On : 07-09-2022
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - INSURANCE POLICY VIOLATION - MONTHLY INCOME ASSESSMENT - INTEREST RATE - [SECTION 166(1)(A) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep insured with the appellant insurance company. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,54,000.00 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company appealed against the order, contending that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence, violation of policy conditions, and excessive compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner or the stationed lorry. The court also found that the insurance company failed to prove that the owner of the jeep violated the policy conditions by hiring the vehicle contrary to the policy conditions. The court further found that the tribunal correctly assessed the monthly income of the petitioner and the rate of interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep? 2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner or the stationed lorry? 3. Whether the owner of the jeep violated the policy conditions by hiring the vehicle contrary to the policy conditions? 4. Whether the tribunal correctly assessed the monthly income of the petitioner? 5. Whether the tribunal correctly assessed the rate of interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence on record clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The court held that the insurance company failed to place any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence. 3. The court held that the insurance company failed to establish that the owner of the jeep violated the policy conditions by hiring the vehicle contrary to the policy conditions. 4. The court held that the tribunal correctly assessed the monthly income of the petitioner based on the evidence adduced. 5. The court held that the insurance company failed to place any guidelines of Reserve Bank of India to show that awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum is not prevailing as on the date of accident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the tribunal. The insurance company was directed to deposit the balance amount, if any, within one month before the tribunal.
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the Order dtd. 5/9/2012 in M.V.O.P. No.11 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby the tribunal awarded compensation Rs.4,54,000.00 with subsequent interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization in favour of the claimant, the 2nd Respondent - M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the order passed by the tribunal.
2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P.
3. The petitioner filed M.V.O.P. under Sec. 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 with interest due to the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15/12/2005 at about 4.30 AM at Puthalapattu Village of Chittoor-Tirupati main road. The case of the claimant is that on 15/12/2005 at about 3.00 AM herself and her husband and other relatives were proceeding to Kanipakam in the jeep bearing No.AP 03 V 7323 of the 1st respondent, which was insured with the 2nd Respondent, when the jeep reached Puthalapattu Village near Kanipakam cross, at 4.30 AM, the driver of the jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and went extreme left side of the road margin and hit back side of the stationed lorry bearing No.ADC 4919, resulting which the petitioner sustained crush and severe bleeding injury to her left hand and also sustained other injuries all over the body.
4. The first respondent remained exparte.
5. The second respondent filed counter admitting the accident and contended that the first respondent is the owner-cum-driver of the jeep and the same was insured with the second respondent and the same is in force by the date of accident. It is further contended that the first respondent was driving the vehicle with due care and caution and was proceeding towards chittoor and when the same reached near Kanipakam cross, opposite coming vehicles were coming without dim and dip and hence turned the jeep towards left side of the road and in the meantime the petitioner placed her left hand out side of the vehicle and the lorry which was parked on the road in a careless manner without any indication of parking signals found by the first respondent turned the jeep towards left side in order to avert the major accident and left hand of the petitioner was injured and there is a negligence on the part of the stationed lorry and also on the part of the petitioner placing her left hand outside of the vehicle.
6. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal formulated the following issues for trial.
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place o 15/12/2005 at about 4.30 a.m., at Puthalapattu village on Chittoor-Tirupati main road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing Regn. No.AP 03 V 7323 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself got examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 to 7 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, however got marked Ex.B.1 policy copy with consent.
8. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal has given finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver-cum-owner of the jeep bearing No.AP 03 V 7323 and awarded an amount of Rs.9,000.00 for transport expenses, Rs.60,000.00 for medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.20,000.00 each for pain and suffering and as well as for loss of amenities and discomfort to the petitioner due to the removal of left hand below elbow and also awarded Rs.15,000.00 for loss of earning
The insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of compensation in motor accident claims, including the burden of proof for contributory negligence and the principles for assessing....
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation, and upheld the principle of liability in motor accident cases.
Claimants in motor vehicle accident cases must meet the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities, and strict evidence rules do not apply, allowing the invocation of the res ipsa loquitur p....
The court upheld the insurance company's liability despite claims of policy violations, confirming that valid insurance coverage is paramount unless proven otherwise.
Point of law : P.W.1 and others went to Hyderabad on the work of R.1 and after attended they were returning back and on the way, this accident took place and hence they are not unauthorized passenger....
Point of law: P.W.1 and others went to Hyderabad on the work of R.1 and after attended they were returning back and on the way, this accident took place and hence they are not the unauthorized passen....
A driver who is found to be a tortfeasor due to contributory negligence cannot claim compensation from their own insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act.
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.