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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2254

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
NALABAM AUDI LAKSHMAMMA & ANR – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 999 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S A V RATNAM
For the Respondents: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

Insurer's liability upheld despite technicalities in driver's license, emphasizing the necessity of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded by MACT - Claimant sustained grievous injuries due to a vehicular accident - MACT awarded Rs.1,85,000/- as compensation, challenged for being inadequate by the insurer - Appeal court modified compensation to Rs.2,55,000/-. (Paras 28 and 29)

(B) Liability of insurance company - Court upheld the liability despite absence of specific endorsements in the driver’s license, emphasizing broad statutory objectives of compensating accident victims. Findings noted from the evidence included the nature of injuries and negligence of the driver (Paras 15 to 27).

Table of Content
1. claimant sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard both sides.

2. Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.410 of 2013 on file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short “the MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and orders dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned MACT, is before this Court in this MACMA invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

3. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the learned MACT and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the appellant is the insurer. Claim for awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- made was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant is disputing both quantum and liability.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of claimant in brief:

5. Claimant is engaged in business, aged about 60 years earning Rs.250/- per day. On 26.06.2013 when she was proceeding from her house situated at 7th cross road, ZP colony, Nellore to get eggs at about 12:20 hours, the driver of water supply van bearing No.AP 26 TA 6384 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), while reversing the van in a rash and negligent manner from the behind of the claimant dashed her whereby the claimant fell down on the road and the back tyre of the van ran over her waist and caused fractures and other severe injuries. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle got down and ran away. The claimant was shifted to Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore for treatment. She was treated as inpatient in the said hospital from 26.06.2013 to 05.07.2013. Operation was conducted to her right wrist joint and left wrist joint and steel plates were also inserted. She had spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. In view of the grievous injuries and fractures, she is unable to attend her normal duties and she cannot stand for long time due to fracture of right hip. She is unable to lift weights with hands.

6. A case in crime No.237 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charged sheeted. Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer both are liable to pay the compensation.

Case of the Respondents:

7. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the negligence while admitting the ownership of the vehicle and insuring the same with Respondent No.2.

8. Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company also filed counter disputing the liability alleging absence of information as required from the owner of vehicle viz. the insured and also put both the insured and claimant to strict proof of all the allegations and compliance of the conditions of policy.

9. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in one voice denied and disputed the age, occupation and income of the claimant and put her to strict proof of nature and effect of injuries, medical expenditure incurred, loss of income due to disability etc. and also justification for the quantum of compensation claimed.

10. On the strength of pleadings following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT are:

(i). Whether the accident took place on 26.06.2013 at about 12.20 hours at 7th street, ZP Colony, Nellore was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. van bearing No.AP 26 TA 6384?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for, If so to what amount?

(iii) To what relief?

11. In I.A.No.96 of 2015, Respondent No.2 Insurance Company was permitted to avail the defences in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

Findings of the learned MACT:

12(i). Evidence of claimant as P.W.1 as to occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant sustaining injuries due to the accident are fit to accepted in view of Ex.A1 and A3

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