Back
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager - Appellant
Vs.
K.Neelabai and Others - Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 OF 2018
Decided On : 18-07-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 163A and 166 – Respondents i.e wife, son and daughter respectively, and respondent No.4 is mother of deceased – Deceased was working as driver on tractor While deceased was driving tractor when it reached at outskirts of Village, tractor turned turtle, in an attempt to avert major accident, result of which, deceased died on spot – Respondent-1 to 4 filed aforesaid OP under Sections 166 and 163A of Act, 1988 against owner of the lorry and insurer of lorry claiming compensation for the death of deceased – Tribunal, owner of lorry, remained ex-parte. appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying allegations and contended that amount claimed by claimants is highly excessive and that it is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss claim petition – Held, On perusal it is clear that in proceeding under Section 163A of Act, it is not open for Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on part of victim – Hence contention of counsel for appellant in that regard not accepted – Insofar as other contention raised by counsel for appellant that claimants filed application under Section 166 of Act and as such Tribunal gravely erred in awarding compensation under Section 163A of Act concerned – Same not appreciated, for simple reason that, even if party approaches Court invoking wrong provision, Court is always bound to do justice by applying correct law – Appeal dismissed (Para: 10 & 11)
Facts of the case:
Respondents i.e wife, son and daughter respectively, and respondent No.4 is mother of deceased – Deceased was working as driver on tractor While deceased was driving tractor when it reached at outskirts of Village, tractor turned turtle, in an attempt to avert major accident, result of which, deceased died on spot – Respondent-1 to 4 filed aforesaid OP under Sections 166 and 163A of Act, 1988 against owner of the lorry and insurer of lorry claiming compensation for the death of deceased – Tribunal, owner of lorry, remained ex-parte. appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying allegations and contended that amount claimed by claimants is highly excessive and that it is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss claim petition
Findings of the court:
On perusal it is clear that in proceeding under Section 163A of Act, it is not open for Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on part of victim – Hence contention of counsel for appellant in that regard not accepted – Insofar as other contention raised by counsel for appellant that claimants filed application under Section 166 of Act and as such Tribunal gravely erred in awarding compensation under Section 163A of Act concerned – Same not appreciated, for simple reason that, even if party approaches Court invoking wrong provision, Court is always bound to do justice by applying correct law
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company questioning the Order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.65 of 2016 dated 02.01.2017.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter, respectively, and respondent No.4 is the mother of the deceased, K.Pochaiah. The deceased was working as driver on tractor bearing No.AP01W 9886. While so, on 04.08.2012 at about 10.00 am., while the deceased was driving tractor bearing No.AP01W 9886, and when it reached at outskirts of Balgala Village, the tractor turned turtle, in an attempt to avert major accident, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed the aforesaid OP under Sections 166 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) against owner of the lorry (respondent No.5 herein) and insurer of the lorry (appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.
3. Before the Tribunal, owner of the lorry, remained ex-parte. The appellant-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations and contended that the amount claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and that it is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
2. Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP01W 9886?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the accidental death of Kotrangi Pochaiah, if so, how much and against which of the respondents?
4. To what relief?”
5. The Tribunal held issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative. Insofar as issue No.3 is concerned, the Tribunal, holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- under various heads, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
6. Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant, submits that if the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation under the Act. He further submits that the owner of the tractor had got his vehicle insured by paying only that much amount of premium which, so far as his employees were concerned, covered the liability to the extent it is provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, Workmen’s Act), and hence, the liability of the appellant is restricted to that, which is provided under the Workmen’s Act and it is not liable to satisfy the entire award made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4. He relied on a decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kore Laxmi, 2003 ACJ 203.
7. Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim, and hence, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. He further submits that having regard to the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act, the owner having got his vehicle insured, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire award made in favour of the claimants and there is no provision in law under which its liability may be restricted or curtailed. He relied on a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kore Laxmi Vs. M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist., 2003 (6) ALT 230 (D.B.).
8. It is necessary to refe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
