Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 836
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 847 OF 2012 Between:
1. BORRA MANGAMMA AND 4 OTHERS W/o. Peraiah Housewife R/o. Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.
2. Borra Lakshvamma W/o. venkatramaiah Housewife R/o. Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.
3. Borra Prabhakara rao, S/o. Venkatramaiah Minor rep., by Mother i.e, Petitioner No.2 R/o. Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.
4. Borra Pavan Kumar S/o. venkatramaiah Minor rep., by Mother i.e, Petitioner No.2 R/o. Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.
5. Borra Chandra Pravinika D/o. venkatramaiah Minor rep., by Mother i.e, Petitioner No.2 R/o. Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. M. ANJI AND ANOTHER S/o. Siva R/o. D.No. A6-407, Adigoppula Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.
6. The New India Assurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional MAnager Divisional Office 4/1, Arundelpet, Guntur district.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: S N PADMINI The Court made the following: ORDER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
JUDGMENT:
1. Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 16.08.2010 in M.V.O.P.
No.1365 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the tribunal'), the claimants preferred this appeal in not fastening the liability on the insurance company.
2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.
3. The petitioners filed a claim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing the death of Borra Venkatramaiah (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident.
4. The claimant's case is that on 19.10.2009, at about 11.00 PM, the deceased engaged a TATA ACE Mini vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') to bring chilly seedlings from Prattipadu to go to Adigoppala village. At about 01.30 AM, early hours of 20.10.2009, after crossing Challaguntla village crossroads, the offending vehicle was turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. As a result, the deceased received multiple injuries. Immediately he was admitted to Dr Veeraiah Choudary Hospital, Narsaraopet. Later he was admitted to N.R.I. hospital, Mangalagiri and died in the hospital on 21.10.2009 while undergoing treatment. It is not disputed that the claimants are the mother, wife, the minor sons of the deceased.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement contending that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and the 1st respondent is not a real owner of the said vehicle; the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. Per the policy, no passengers are allowed to travel in a goods vehicle.
7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.A1 to A5, and on behalf of the 2nd respondent RW.1 got examined, marked Exs.B1 and B2.
8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver; the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident, which is evident from Ex.A2 inquest report, Ex.A3 postmortem report, Ex.A5 charge sheet. The Tribunal held that petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @8% p.a from the date of the petition apportioned among the petitioners against the 1st respondent. The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the records.
10. The learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in not fixing the liability against the insurance company as the deceased is an owner of red chillies and is not a gratuitous passenger.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings and observation of the learned Tribunal.
12. Now the point for determination are whether the Tribunal is justified in not fastening the liability on the insurance company.
POINT :
13. There is no serious dispute about the manner of an accident. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is also not in dispute. The finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license is not questioned by the insurance company by filing an appeal or cross- objections. The finding of the Tribunal that the Ex.B1 policy was in force at the time of the accident is also not challenged by the insurance com-
pany by filing an appeal or cross-objections.
14. The prime contention of the appellants is that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as an owner of the goods but not a gratuitous passenger. It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the deceased engaged the o
