SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
The United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager – Appellant
Versus
Gandavarapu Rathnamma (Died) and Ors. – Respondents
C.M.A .No. 1583 Of 2004
Decided On : 15-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam.
For the Respondents: Smt. M.Suguna.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation, the timing of the insurance policy's coverage, and the Court's power to enhance compensation under the benevolent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - Road Traffic Accident - 338 IPC - Insurance Policy - Liability - Rash and Negligent Driving - Premium Payment - Liability of Insurance Company - Compensation Awarded - Enhanced Compensation

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, appealed against the Award granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which granted compensation to the injured petitioner due to a road traffic accident. The accident occurred when a car, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, ran over the petitioner's foot at a bus stand. The Tribunal found the accident to be due to rash and negligent driving and awarded compensation of Rs.30,000 with interest. The appellant challenged its liability to pay compensation, arguing that the insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the accident.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and upheld the Tribunal's finding. It also held that the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident, as the premium had been paid prior to the accident. The Court further enhanced the compensation from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,00,000, considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

Issues: The issues included the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and the timing of the insurance policy's coverage.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving and that the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident, as the premium had been paid prior to the accident. It also relied on the principles of the Insurance Act and previous case law to establish the liability of the Insurance Company and the timing of the policy's coverage. Additionally, it invoked the benevolent nature of the Motor Vehicles Act to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, enhanced the compensation from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,00,000, and directed the respondents to deposit the compensation amount within two months. The Legal Representatives of the claimant were directed to pay the requisite Court-fee and were entitled to share the compensation equally.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging the Award dated 16.03.2004, in O.P.No.14 of 2001 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore (for short “the Tribunal”), granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the petition till the date of realization, to the petitioner-injured against the 1st & 2nd respondents jointly and severally, on account of the injuries sustained by the injured in a road traffic accident that occurred at P.S.R. bus stand, Nellore Town.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Following note-worthy facts emerge from the record of appeal:

    a) On 21.06.2000 at about 11.00 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding to a flower stall after getting down the bus at P.S.R. bus stand, Nellore, a Car bearing No.AP 03 V 404 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed her behind as a result, she fell on the ground and the wheels of the Car ran over her right foot causing crush injury. The petitioner was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore and from there to a private hospital for treatment. Due to the said crush injury, she became partially disabled. A complaint was lodged by the injured with the jurisdictional Police Station, Nellore, alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 03 V 404 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.34 of 2000 for the offence under Section 338 IPC and issued FIR. After completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted by the Police against the accused-driver for having committed an offence punishable under Section 338 IPC before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The claimant-Gandavarapu Rathnamma filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said road traffic accident, against the respondents 1 and 2.

b) The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, did not contest the matter.

c) The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the nature of the accident, age, income and avocation of the petitioner, coverage of the insurance policy and also medical expenses incurred and the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and contending inter alia that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is too high and excessive. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 V 404 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

e) During the trial, in order to establish her claim, the injured-claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 i.e., Attested Xerox copies FIR, charge sheet and Wound Certificate of the petitioner. The owner-insured (1st respondent) of the offending vehicle neither led any evidence nor marked any documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Ex.B.1-Insurance Policy was marked by the consent of Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.

f) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3, and Ex.B1, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Car) bearing No.AP 03 V 404 by its driver and passed the impugned Award

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top