Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Makkapati Sekhar Babu Another on 16 April, 2025
APHC010077222013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
2640/2013
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Co.ltd ...APPELLANT
AND
Makkapati Sekhar Babu Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V DURGA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SANJEEVA REDDY RACHAMALLA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
2641/2013
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Co.ltd ...APPELLANT
AND
Makkapati Krishan Kumari Another and ...RESPONDENT(S)
2
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V DURGA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SANJEEVA REDDY RACHAMALLA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
2695/2013
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ...APPELLANT
AND
Mokkapati Subbamma 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V DURGA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SANJEEVA REDDY RACHAMALLA
The Court made the following:
3
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2640, 2641 and 2695 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. MACMA.No.2640 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company
impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional
District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.811 of 2011.
2. MACMA.No.2641 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company
impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional
District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.812 of 2011.
3. MACMA.No.2695 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company
impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional
District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.813 of 2011.
4. Smt.V.Durga, the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance
company in all these appeals and Sri Sanjeeva Reddy
Rachamalla, the learned counsel for respondents/ claimants in all
these appeals submitted their arguments.
4
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
5. In these appeals filed by the insurance company, the
following questions have arisen for consideration:
1. In a claim preferred under section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the injured/ legal representatives
of the deceased, whether the insurance company is
entitled to plead and prove that the accident was not
out of rash or negligent act on part of the driver of the
alleged offending vehicle but it was out of rash or
negligent act of the injured or the deceased?
2. Whether triple riding of motorcycle by itself amounts to
act of negligence or rashness and whether violation of
law having occurred because of triple riding, the claim
under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
shall fail?
6. The following aspects are to be noticed: –
On 23.05.2011, Sri M.Kishore was driving a motorcycle
bearing registration No. AP 37 AQ 4950. He was carrying two
pillion riders, namely Sri M.Rathaiah and Sri M.Sekhar Babu. It
was about 05.00 pm, the motorcycle was travelling from
Vennadeni Village to Rentapalla Village. There was a lorry
bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131 stationed on the road on
5
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batchthe wrong side. The motorcycle went and dashed the lorry. In the
said accident, the driver of the motorcycle, Sri M. Kishore died.
One of the pillion riders Sri M.Rathaiah also died. The other pillion
rider, Sri M.Sekhar Babu suffered serious injuries all over his
body.
7. The incident was informed to police and Sattenapalli Town
Police Station registered Cr.No.97 of 2011. After due
investigation, a charge sheet was laid finding fault with the driver
of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131.
8. The injured Sri M.Sekhar Babu filed MVOP.No.811 of 2011
under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. The legal representatives of
driver of the motorcycle Sri M.Kishore filed MVOP.No.812 of 2011
praying compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The legal representatives
of deceased pillion rider Sri M.Rathaiah filed MVOP.No.813 of
2011 under section 163A of the motorcycle praying compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/-.
9. In all these three claim petitions, the owner of the lorry and
the insurer of the lorry were made respondents. The owner did
not choose to contest. The insurance company raised its contest.
6
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
10. Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum
– V Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Guntur settled the
issues and recorded oral and documentary evidence led by both
sides. After hearing arguments and after considering the material
on record, it arrived at the conclusion that the claim was under
section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimants have no
legal need to plead and prove negligence on part of the other
vehicle. It negatived the contention of insurance company that the
driver of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident.
11. In MVOP.No.811 of 2011, it granted Rs.75,000/- as
compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on
the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance
company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2640 of 2013.
In MVOP.No.812 of 2011, it granted Rs.2,79,000/- as
compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on
the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance
company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2641 of 2013.
In MVOP.No.813 of 2011, it granted Rs.2.79,000/- as
compensation and awarded 7.5% interest per annum from the
7
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
date of petition till the date of payment and fastened liability on
the owner of the lorry as well as insurer of the lorry. Insurance
company assailed the said award in MACMA.No.2695 of 2013.
12. The evidence led before the claims tribunal and the FIR
and the charge sheet and the findings of the claims tribunal
showed that at the material point of time on the motorcycle, three
persons were going on and the lorry was stationed on the wrong
side of the road and the motorcycle went and dashed it causing
loss of two lives and loss of bodily integrity to one person.
Learned counsel for insurance company contends that three
persons were travelling on the motorcycle which is in violation of
law and that triple riding led to the accident. A learned Judge of
this court in Chakali Swaroopa Vs Mohd. Gouse1 considered a
similar contention raised on behalf of the insurance company and
held that mere infraction of traffic laws and riding a two wheeler
with three persons on it by itself is not a disentitling factor in
claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
13. Learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company cited
National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sinitha2 stating that
even in a claim petition filed under section 163A of the Motor
1
2016 ACJ 383 (AP)
2
2011 (8) Supreme 301
8
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
Vehicles Act, the insurance company is entitled to plead and
prove total negligence or contributory negligence on part of other
party. This court finds no merit in this contention. A three Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India
Insurance Company Limited Vs Sunil Kumar3 overruled the
above referred Sinitha‘s case. The question that was referred to
the larger Bench was “Whether in a claim proceeding under
section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is open for the
insurer to raise defence/plea of negligence”. In paragraph No.9 of
the said Judgment, their Lordships answered it stating that in any
proceeding under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it
is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on
part of the victim. The legal reasoning given by their Lordships for
such conclusion is that though section 140(4) of the Motor
Vehicles Act contemplates the possibility of a defence that could
be raised by the insurer about negligence on part of the claimant,
the same could not be applied in view of the language employed
in section 163A and the legal philosophy behind incorporation of
section 163A. Their Lordships stated that in claims under section
163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if insurer is permitted to raise the
3
(2019) 12 SCC 398
9
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
defence of negligence on par with a proceeding under section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be self-contradictory and
any such permission would defeat the very legislative intention in
incorporation of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
14. In view of the principles of law, both the questions raised in
these appeals are answered against the insurance company. This
court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned awards.
15. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date:16.04.2025
Dvs
10
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.2640 of 2013& Batch
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2640, 2641 and 2695 of 2013
Date: 16.04.2025
Dvs
[ad_1]
Source link