Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - Petitioner
Versus
Yennana Subbarao and Others – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.659 of 2012
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Naresh Byrapaneni
For the Respondent: D Kodandarami Reddy
The legal position regarding the requirement to obtain a transport licence for certain vehicles, as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited, 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(21), Section 2(15), Section 2(48), Section 10(2)(e), Section 10(2)(f), Section 10(2)(h), Section 10(20)(e), Section 2(41) - The court found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver possessed a driving licence for LMV non-transport, which was sufficient to drive the auto rickshaw. The court referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited, 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008, which clarified the legal position regarding the requirement to obtain a transport licence for certain vehicles. The court held that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto rickshaw on the date of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying for compensation for injuries sustained in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.29,000/- to the claimant towards compensation. The third respondent filed an appeal questioning the legal validity of the Tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver possessed a driving licence for LMV non-transport, which was sufficient to drive the auto rickshaw. The court referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited, 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008, which clarified the legal position regarding the requirement to obtain a transport licence for certain vehicles. The court held that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto rickshaw on the date of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
Issues: Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation, and to what relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto rickshaw on the date of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the third respondent was dismissed, and the court upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation to the claimant.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant is the third respondent in M.V.O.P.No.788 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada and the respondents are the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in the said case.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.
3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 19.10.2004.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows :
On 19.10.2004, the petitioner took his daughter Mangatayaru to a hospital at Kakinada on his cycle, while they were returning and when they reached Rayudupalem centre at 3.00 p.m., the driver of auto bearing No. AP 5Y 7453 coming from Pithapuram towards Kakinada, came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and with high speed, dashed the cycle of the petitioner, resulting which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP 5Y 7453 by its driver, the 1st respondent therein, resulting injuries to the petitioner?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked.
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.29,000/- to the claimant towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the third respondent filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.
9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
10. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?
11. POINT :-
On considering the evidence of PW1 and on considering the other evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A3 attested copy of Charge Sheet also support the case of the claimant. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 clearly proves the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto, resulting which the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above finding given by the Tribunal.
12. It was held by the Tribunal in its order that the offending vehicle is insured with third respondent Insurance company under Ex.B1 and the policy is also in force by the date of accident. As per the evidence produced by the Insurance company, the driver of the offending vehicle is authorized to drive Light Motor Non-transport Vehicle and the driver of the auto is not authorized to drive the auto rickshaw Transport. RW2, who is the Junior Assistant working in Regional Transport Authority Office, deposed that the driver of offending vehicle possessed driving licence for LMV non-transport and a separate endorseme
