Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3448
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN, JJ
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMP LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ALLAPURAJU SUJANA, KADAPA DIST & TWO OTHERS – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2276 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D RAVI KIRAN
For the Respondents: D KODANDARAMI REDDY, G RAMACHANDRA REDDY
Court emphasized the principle of just compensation unimpeded by failure to appeal, mandating evaluation based on income and future prospects alongside established negligence by eyewitness testimony.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Appeal against order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- with 6% interest - Court found both direct eyewitnesses confirming the driver’s negligence, setting aside Tribunal's findings based solely on inquest report - Appeal dismissed, with compensation enhanced to Rs.33,78,930/- at 9% interest. (Paras 1, 12, 18)
(B) Compensation - Principle of just and fair compensation mandates evaluation irrespective of the absence of cross-appeal, supported by past judgments ensuring proper allocation among claimants - Total award includes loss of income adjusted for personal expenses, with future prospects considered. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The accident involved a police jeep driven by the deceased colliding with an auto driven by the second respondent, leading to the death of the deceased. Eyewitness accounts were crucial for determining fault instead of preliminary inquiry findings.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal's award of compensation based on actual income and age considered, with adjustments made for personal living expenses. Future prospects considered under applicable Supreme Court guidelines.
Issues: Determining fault for the accident and fair compensation under prevailing laws, particularly in light of past court decisions related to similar cases.
Ratio Decidendi: Evidence from direct eyewitnesses outweighed police reports; fair compensation should reflect the deceased's income and future prospects while addressing all claimants equitably.
Result: Appeal dismissed with enhanced compensation awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance appeal due to compensation order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accident leading to claim under motor vehicles act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on driver negligence and claims validity. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. eyewitness statements affirmed in assessment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. just compensation assessment mandated. (Para 15 , 19) |
| 6. final compensation awarded. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
(per CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J):
Appellant - Insurance Company filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.203 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Kadapa, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act awarding compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) The deceased driver while attending to Election duties was proceeding to Ongole headquarters along with the commandant and other police staff, on the way on 13.06.2015 at about 04.15 a.m., near Nellore Palem on Nellore - Mumbai Highway, met with an accident as Tata Magic Auto bearing No. AP 26TV 0809 came in the opposite direction and dashed the police jeep. The deceased along with inmates of Jeep sustained injuries and were shifted to the Government Hospital, Atmakuru. Later, the deceased was being taken to Chennai for better treatment, but he succumbed on the way. At the instance of Assistant Commandant and inmates of Jeep, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered as Cr.No.73 of 2012 under Sections 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the Auto. As deceased aged 25 years and was working as driver with police department stated to be drawing salary of Rs.14,000/- per month, considering his future promotions in the department and better salary prospects, wife of the deceased laid claim for compensation of Rs.30,50,000/- against the 1st respondent - owner of auto and 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. The 3rd respondent, mother of the deceased, as was not cooperating with the claimant, she got impleaded as such.
(b) The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that the deceased was at fault in causing the accident but not the driver of auto by denying that the auto was driven in a rash and negligent manner without dim and dip of lights on wrong side. It was also contended that the negligence was solely attributable to the deceased as the inquest report and final report of police investigating the accident found that the same occurred due to fault of deceased, therefore, the claim was prayed to be dismissed.
(c) Insurance company also filed written statement denying all the averments of petition and firstly stated that auto never involved in the alleged accident and further by referring to the inquest report and final report, it was stated that the deceased was at fault in causing the accident and as driver of auto was in compliance with all traffic rules at the time of accident, he could not be found to be in fault. Further it was also pleaded that the driver of auto was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the auto, which was transport vehicle, thereby violated the conditions of policy, eventually insurance company also filed petition under Section 170 of the Act, which was permitted. The compensation claimed based on age, income, future prospects and interest were all contested to be highly excessive and unjust and thereby sought for dismissal of the petition.
(d) The 3rd respondent - the mother of the deceased, while denying the averments in the petition to the extent that she was not cooperating in instituting the claim, supported the other aspects of claim and prayed to award legitimate share in her favour.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1
