Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15574
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
TAPA PRASAD AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No.696 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
The court affirmed that an insurance company fails when it doesn't prove contributory negligence, while establishing the basis for determining just compensation for the injured claimant following established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in an accident caused by the negligent driving of the offending vehicle - MACT awarded Rs.2,70,260/- which was found inadequate by the appellate court - Enhanced compensation awarded to Rs.3,30,260/-. (Paras 34 and 35)
(B) Negligence - To establish negligence in a motor accident case, complainant's burden must be met; failure on the part of the Insurance Company to demonstrate contributory negligence negates their defenses. (Paras 14-15)
(C) Driving License - The insurance company's argument based on the driver’s lack of a transport license was insufficient as per previous court decisions addressing the overlap between transport and non-transport licenses. (Paras 19-24)
(D) Compensation - The appellate court highlighted the need for just compensation, referencing multiple heads for evaluating damages such as pain, suffering, and medical costs, affirming the claimant's need for a broader compensatory response to their injuries. (Paras 28-34)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claimant's condition established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. issues identified for trial and evidence needed as per parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. insurance company failed to prove negligence. (Para 14 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT:
I. Introduction:
One Tapa Prasad [herein after referred to as ‘the claimant’], met with an accident, on the intervening night of 24/25.06.2011 allegedly on account of rash and negligent driving of goods auto bearing No.AP 05 V 7035 [for short referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] by its driver.
[ii] M.V.O.P.No.456 of 2014 was filed by him before the District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal [for short “MACT”], claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
[iii] Learned MACT under the questioned Decree and Order dated23.11.2017 awarded a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-.
[iv] Driver of the offending vehicle- 1st respondent and owner- 2nd respondent remained ex parte. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company contested the case.
[v] Respondent Insurance Company filed the present Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimant and respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the leaned MACT .
II. Case of the claimant, in brief:
3. [i] Wife of the claimant- one Tapa Prasad, contending that the said Tapa Prasad became unsound, filed the claim petition specifically pleading that the claimant was working in Kotak Mahindra Company as recovery agent and he was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. On 24/25-06-2011 at about 0.30 hours, when he was travelling on his Motor Cycle near Chandana Ramesh apartments at Dowlaiswaram road, Rajamundry, within the limits of Dowlaiswaram Police Station, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, on which the claimant was travelling, from its behind causing the accident. Due to the said impact the claimant received the following injuries :-
(1) a lacerated injury of 2” x 1½” x Bone deep near the outer angle of the left eye (CT report fracture),
(2) an abrasion of 2” x 2” over the left side of the forehead.
(3) Tenderness on the left chest (Fracture of 2 to 7th Ribs) on left side
(4) Tenderness over the Left shoulder (fracture).
[ii] The claimant was shifted to Apex Energy Hospital, Rajahmundry soon after the accident. He was given treatment in ICU, kept on ventilator. Thereafter he was shifted to Life Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry, where brain operation was conducted due to blood clots in the nerves in bran. He was inpatient for 15 days, treatment was given for ribs and color bone fractures. He was treated at Bollineni Hospital, Sneha Hospital and Sri Ramya Hospital, Rajahmundry, he had incurred huge expenditure.
[iii] Claimant was aged ‘35’, hale and healthy, but due to the accident, lost his memory and unable to do any work, became permanently disabled. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
III. Case of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company [appellant]:
4. [i] Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, absence of negligence on the part of the claimant in driving the motor cycle and negligence of the claimant as the cause for the accident.
[ii] The claimant shall prove his age, occupation and disability suffered, loss of income due to disability with cogent evidence.
[iii] The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence. The offending vehicle is of transport category but, the licence possessed by the driver is of non-transport category.
[iv] The claim is excessive and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the offending vehicle i.e. goods auto bearing No.AP 5 V 7035?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to
