Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5345
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH - PRINCIPLAL BENCH AT ANDHRA PRADESH
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
Chitluru Sreelakhsmi – Appellant
Versus
N.Vijay Kumar – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No.2644 of 2011 | M.V.O.P.13 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri T.C.Krishnan
For the Respondents: Sri Naresh Byrapaneni
The appellate court affirmed that a valid light motor vehicle license suffices for driving related transport vehicles, impacting insurance liability and leading to reassessment of compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for wrongful death in a road accident - Tribunal's award of Rs.2,97,500/- challenged - The Court held that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, impacting the insurance company's liability. (Paras 8-10)
(B) Compensation - The compensation awarded was found inadequate as it failed to consider conventional heads following precedents set by the Supreme Court in relevant cases, leading to enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,92,000/- with interest. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was killed in a road accident involving a motorcycle and an auto-rickshaw due to negligent driving. The Tribunal initially ruled partial liability and compensation, leading to this appeal for reassessment and enhancement.
Findings of Court:
The driver’s possession of a valid license invalidated the insurance company's denial of liability. Compensation award was increased to reflect due justice, considering precedents.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company and the adequacy of compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: Appellate courts can reassess liability determined by Tribunals if previous decisions or policy interpretations lead to manifest injustice due to incorrect application by the Tribunal of relevant legal standards.
Result: Appeal partly allowed, compensation enhanced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of the appeal and relevant incident details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding insurance liability and compensation calculation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations regarding evidentiary sufficiency and legal standards for liability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarification of the new compensation amount based on revised calculations. (Para 12) |
| 5. final judgment and its implications for the award. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT:
This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the judgment and award dt.10.05.2011 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore in M.V.O.P.13 of 2006 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.2,97,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of presentation of the claim till the date of realization of the amount, against the 1st respondent by exonerating the 2nd respondent i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited on account of the death of Chitluru Chinna Veeraiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in the road accident occurred on 02.09.2005 at Katavaralla Centre, Uyyalapalli, Nellore District.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").
3. The factual context of the case is as follows:
(a) On 02.09.2005 at about 5.30 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 26 D 1182 from Uyyalapalli Village along with his friends to Kaluvoi on business purpose and when they reached near Katavaralla Village centre, Uyyalapalli, at about 6.00 a.m., an auto bearing registration No.AP 26 W 6652 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing horn came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased as a result he received injuries and died instantaneously and two other pillion riders sustained severe bleeding injuries. The matter was reported to the police, alleging that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said auto, and based on the F.I.R lodged by the wife of the deceased, a case in Cr.No.39 of 2005 was registered. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/driver for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 & 338 IPC.
(b) The wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased in the said road accident.
(c) The 1st respondent/owner of the auto did not choose to file counter and did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending inter alia disputing the alleged motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. The 2nd respondent has no liability to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioners unless it was proved that the insurance policy was in operation on the date of occurrence and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly registered and further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased himself and further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and excessive.
(d) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto AP 26 W 6652 or due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased?
(2) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as pleaded by the 2nd respondent?
(3) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much amount and against which of th
