Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kotepalli Sambasiva Rao vs Vadlamudi Vikram Anor. on 4 March, 2025
APHC010380712012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
1288/2012
Between:
Kotepalli Sambasiva Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Vadlamudi Vikram Anor and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. NARAM NAGESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S A V RATNAM
2. .
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated
22.03.2005 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District,
Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in
O.P.No.413 of 1999.
2. Heard arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, the
learned counsel for appellant and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
3. The following facts are required to be noticed:
On 11.11.1997 at about 10:30 P.M. a lorry bearing
registration No.AP-16-V-4046 proceeding from Eluru to
Hyderabad with a load of fish turned turtle near Chandrala
Village, N.S.P. Canal and Sri Katepalli Sambasiva Rao suffered
3
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012grievous injuries. Stating that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram is the owner
of the offending vehicle and National Insurance Company Limited
insured the offending vehicle, he levied a claim under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act and filed O.P.No.413 of 1999.
Respondent No.1 therein Sri Vadlamudi Vikram did not choose to
appear and contest. The insurance company/respondent No.2
therein raised a contest stating that Sri Vadlamudi
Vikram/respondent No.1 was not owner of the offending vehicle.
It further raised contention that the Claims Tribunal lacked
jurisdiction as it is a case of own damage and sought dismissal of
the claim.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-V-
4046 driven by the petitioner himself?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation? If so to what amount and against
which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
4
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
5. PWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked for
claimant/injured. RWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and
Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked for respondent No.2-insurance
company.
6. The learned Claims Tribunal found that the claimant injured
sustained serious injuries and had undertaken long medical
treatment, and he was subjected to four surgeries. Towards pain
and suffering, loss of actual earnings, extra nourishment and
attendant charges, medical expenses, transportation to hospital
and permanent disability it found Rs.98,945/- as just
compensation. After recording detailed reasons and after
consideration of precedent, it observed that the claimant was not
entitled to seek compensation, and the insurance company was
not liable. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim petition.
7. Assailing the same, the injured claimant preferred this
appeal.
8. Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy the learned counsel contends that
the Claims Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the law
and it ought to have granted compensation and cited National
5
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veldi Chandra Sekhar1, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meenaben Mahendrabhai Chavda2 and
Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Atika
Devi3.
9. Against it, Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the
grievance of the appellant is misplaced and in the cases of own
damage the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the impugned
award is right on law in the context of the facts available on
record and therefore, this appeal may be dismissed.
10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the owner-cum-driver of a vehicle is
entitled to claim damages before the Claims
Tribunal for his own fault?
1
2012 ACJ 1153 (A.P.)
2
2023 ACJ 949 (Gujarat)
3
2023 ACJ 1575 (Jharkhand)
6
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012POINT:
11. From the oral and documentary evidence, the following
facts are not in dispute:
A lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-V-4046 was involved
in an accident and the appellant/claimant- Sri K.Sambasiva Rao
sustained grievous injuries in that accident. At the material point
of time there was in force Ex.B.1-insurance policy.
This appellant filed the claim petition stating that
Sri Vadlamudi Vikram was the owner of the offending lorry. As
against that the insurance company contended that the
claimant/appellant-Sri K.Sambasiva Rao himself was the owner of
the offending lorry at the material point of time. Referring to the
evidence of the claimant, who testified before the Claims Tribunal
as PW.1, it was observed by the Claims Tribunal that PW.1
himself admitted that at the material point of time he was the
owner of the offending lorry. RW.2 produced Ex.X.2 which is a
copy of B-register maintained by the Road Transport Authority.
From that the Claims Tribunal observed that till 10.08.1998 the
offending lorry stood registered in the name of the injured
7
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012claimant- Sri K.Sambasiva Rao and it was on 11.08.1998 he
transferred it in favour of Sri B.Anand Shyam. The subject matter
accident occurred on 11.11.1997. Thus, by the time of the
accident the injured claimant himself was the owner of the
offending vehicle. Though he contended that Sri Vadlamudi
Vikram/respondent No.1 was the owner of the offending vehicle
at the material point of time, he did not adduce any evidence in
support of it. Even if it is assumed that the appellant had sold out
his vehicle to Sri Vadlamudi Vikram since he still continues to be
the registered owner in the records of RTA in such circumstances
the law is that he alone shall be considered as the owner and not
Sri Vadlamudi Vikram4. Therefore, the finding of the Claims
Tribunal that the injured claimant was the owner of the offending
vehicle at the material point of time is a finding arrived at on facts
and does not require any interference.
12. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, at the outset, it
is urged that the Claims Tribunal should have at least passed its
award as against respondent No.1- Sri Vadlamudi Vikram. This is
4
Pushpa @ Leela v. Shakuntala 2011 (1) Supreme 193 SC
8
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
a meritless submission and a submission which is against the
facts and evidence on record.
13. The case set out in the claim petition by this appellant was
that on 11.11.1997 he himself was driving the offending lorry and
it turned turtle, and he sustained injuries. It is crystal clear that
there was no other vehicle involved in this accident. Ex.A.1-F.I.R.
and Ex.A.6-charge sheet were considered by the Claims Tribunal.
After considering such documents and the oral evidence it
positively recorded a finding that at the material point of time the
accident occurred only because of the rash or negligent driving of
the claimant himself.
14. The upshot of the above discussion shows that as on the
date of accident this appellant was the owner-cum-driver of the
offending vehicle.
15. Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant
contends that even in such cases the injured appellant is entitled
to seek compensation from the insurance company. According to
the learned counsel the appellant/claimant may be considered as
the driver at the material point of time and grant compensation
9
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
though he happens to be the owner also. Strength for these
contentions is sought to be derived from the rulings the learned
counsel cited. In Veldi Chandra Sekhar’s case5, the claimant
was the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. It was a case
of death. The insurance policy therein covered the risk of the
owner. In such circumstances compensation was awarded.
Meenaben Mahendrabhai Chavda’s case6 – that was a case
where the insurance policy covered the risk of the driver as
additional premium was paid. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles
Act was considered and accordingly compensation was awarded.
In Atika Devi’s case7, the facts are totally different. There the
original owner was standing by the side of the road. His driver
while driving the tractor dashed him and caused injuries. The
claim was made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It
was in the above referred circumstances the owner who died in
the accident was considered as a third party since he was not in
the offending vehicle.
5
supra 1
6
supra 2
10
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
16. Having bestowed keen attention on the above referred
rulings and the submissions of the learned counsel one is
required to notice the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Ashalata Bhowmik8. That was a case of the offending vehicle
being driven by owner-cum-driver met with an accident resulting
in the death of the driver-cum-owner. The vehicle was covered
by insurance policy. In paragraph No.7, their Lordships
recorded……… “the deceased being the owner of the offending
vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The
deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent
driving. A claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the
basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he
himself caused the accident on account of his own rash and
negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance
company to pay for the same. Referring to Section 147 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, their Lordships in Oriental Insurance Co.
7
supra 3
8
(2018) 9 SCC 801
11
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha9 held that the risk of death or bodily injury in
terms of Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act covers a risk
of a third party only. If there was additional premium paid in
respect of the risk of death or bodily injury of the owner then to
that extent the insurance company could be directed to pay
compensation.
17. In the case at hand, in paragraph No.22 of the impugned
award the Claims Tribunal recorded a clear finding that as per
Ex.A.4-insurance policy (equivalent to Ex.B.1) it has not covered
the risk of the owner. The undisputed facts of the present case
disclosed the owner driving the vehicle. Therefore, his claim for
compensation before the Claims Tribunal is misplaced as he
failed to cover his own risk. He is not a third party and he being
the tort-feasor his indemnifier/insurance company cannot be
fastened with any liability since the liability of insurance company
arises only in the event of liability of the insured. Therefore, this
appeal is devoid of all merits. Hence, the point is answered
against the appellant.
9
(2007) 9 SCC 263
12
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
18. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The award dated
22.03.2005 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District,
Eluru in O.P.No.413 of 1999 is confirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 04.03.2025
Ivd
13
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2012
Date: 04.03.2025
Ivd