Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1228
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chilaka Neeraja – Respondent
MACMA 2706/2016
NARESH BYRAPANENI, M S R CHANDRA MURTHY
The insurance company is liable for compensation as the deceased was covered under the policy, and the MACT's award was enhanced to Rs.7,34,000 based on established legal principles.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Appeal against the MACT award for compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- for the death of a labourer in an accident involving a tractor - Insurance company denied liability on grounds of negligence and policy violations - The MACT found in favor of the claimants, establishing the insurance company's liability. (Paras 4, 8, 30)
(B) Liability of Insurance Company - The burden of proof for absence of driving license lies with the insurer, which failed to substantiate its claims - The policy covered the deceased as a labourer, and the court ruled that the deceased was not an unauthorized passenger. (Paras 17, 18)
(C) Compensation Quantification - The MACT's award was found to be just and reasonable, with the court enhancing the compensation to Rs.7,34,000/- based on established legal principles for calculating loss of dependency and other heads of compensation. (Paras 19, 30)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, a labourer, died in an accident involving a tractor while traveling with a sand load. The claimants sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which the MACT awarded, leading to the appeal by the insurance company.
Findings of Court:
The insurance company was found liable as the deceased was covered under the policy, and the compensation amount was enhanced based on judicial precedents.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the insurance company could deny liability due to policy violations and the correct quantification of compensation for the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the insurance company had not proven its defenses regarding the driving license and that the policy adequately covered the deceased's labor-related risks.
Result: Appeal dismissed; compensation enhanced to Rs.7,34,000/-.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard both sides.
2. Challenge in this appeal is against the award and decree dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District (hereinafter referred to as “the MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.433 of 2013.
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT is the appellant herein. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.
4. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 to 4 and son of the clamant No.5 by name one Sri Chilaka Prabhakar. As against the claim made for Rs.4,00,000/-, the learned MACT granted Rs.6,22,000/-.
5. The facts and context that led to filing of this appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in succinct are as follows:
(i). One Sri Chilaka Prabhakar(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), is a labourer. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 26 AR 5204 and 5205 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). On 10.10.2012, the deceased along with the sand load when travelling near Amaluru of Harijanawada, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, within the limits of Allur Police Station, at about 02.30 am, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the steering and hit the party flag on the cement mound, whereby the tractor fell in the irrigation channel, due to which, the deceased suffered severe bleeding injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Rajupalem, where he was declared as no more. The owner of the tractor remained ex parte.
(ii). The Insurance Company (appellant herein) denied its liability on the grounds:
(1) Want of negligence on the part of driver of the tractor.
(2) There is a provision that only one seat in the tractor andtravellingof the deceased adjacent to the driver is not permissible.
(3) Married daughter /second claimant is not entitled for compensation.
(4) The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence.
(5) Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
(iii). While answering the issues as to negligence, valid and effective driving licence and entitlement of the claimants for compensation, and liability of the Insurance Company, the learned MACT found all the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.6,22,000/- with costs and interest etc. concluding that the owner and insurance company of offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation.
Arguments in the appeal:
6(1). Learned counsel for the appellant argued that (i) the learned MACT erred in ignoring the conditions of policy and absence of provision for travel of the deceased in the offending vehicle in whatever capacity and that the learned MACT ought to have held that (ii) the policy does not cover the risk of deceased in the given facts and circumstances.
(iii) the claimants failed to prove the valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
(iv) the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is excessive.
6(2). Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 42 years. He was engaged as a labourer and was travelling along with the sand load in the tractor. The observations of the learned MACT on the points of negligence, valid driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, propriety of the traveling of the deceased in the vehicle and the policy covering the risk in the facts and circumstances of the case etc. are fit for confirmation. Learned MACT ought to have granted more than Rs.6,22,000/- and this Appellate Court can consider the same and award more compensation while dismissing the appeal of the Insuranc
