- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Boyapati Koteswara Rao And Another v. Pappu Veeranna And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-4-1981 at Vijayawada, in which the respondent sustained a fracture on his left ankle resulting in permanent disability and a limp. The respondent, a photographer running Veeranna Studio with branches in Vijayawada and Madras, claimed damages amounting to Rs. 74,000/- for loss of earnings and other injuries. The Court of Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 37,500/-. The vehicle owner and the Insurance Company jointly appealed against this award.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a joint appeal by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company is maintainable given that the defences available to each are different under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the award of Rs. 37,500/- by the Tribunal was justified in light of the evidence regarding the respondent’s injuries, disability, and loss of earnings.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- A preliminary objection was raised that a single appeal jointly preferred by the Insurance Company and the vehicle owner is not maintainable because the defences available to each differ under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Reliance was placed on the Allahabad High Court decision in United India F. and G.I. Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. Gulab Chandra (AIR 1985 All 44), which held that the owner and insurer cannot jointly appeal as their grounds of defence differ and the owner is not an aggrieved person if the decree does not require him to pay.
Respondent's Arguments
- The joint appeal is maintainable because the Insurance Company indemnifies the owner and both have a common interest in challenging the award.
- The owner is an aggrieved person even if the insurer initially pays the compensation, since the owner remains liable beyond the insurer’s limit and has an interest in protecting the indemnifier’s interests.
- There is no conflict of interest between the owner and insurer, and the court can manage the appeals to avoid inconsistent decrees.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| United India F. and G.I. Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. Gulab Chandra, AIR 1985 All 44 | Held that joint appeals by vehicle owner and insurer are not maintainable due to differing grounds of defence and the owner not being an aggrieved person if not liable to pay. | The court dissented from this precedent, holding that joint appeals are maintainable as the insurer indemnifies the owner and both have a common interest without conflicting defences. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the maintainability of a joint appeal by the vehicle owner and the Insurance Company. It recognized that while the defences available to the insurer are statutorily restricted compared to those of the owner, this does not create conflicting interests. The insurer acts as an indemnifier, and the owner remains liable beyond the insurer’s limit, thus both are aggrieved persons entitled to jointly appeal. The Court rejected the reliance on the Allahabad High Court decision, emphasizing that joint appeals promote judicial efficiency and prevent inconsistent decrees. The Court also clarified that if the owner’s appeal fails, the insurer cannot adopt the owner’s grounds and must be confined to its statutory defences.
On the merits, the Court examined the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. It upheld the award of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of earnings to the date of trial, based on documentary evidence of a reduced payment for an incomplete film project. The Court accepted the 10% disability rating and awarded Rs. 5,000/- for future loss of earnings, considering the respondent’s age and family business involvement. Other amounts awarded for transport, nourishment, clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenity were found reasonable given the respondent’s permanent limp and use of a walking stick. The Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is held maintainable but dismissed on merits.
The Court’s decision confirms that joint appeals by vehicle owners and insurers are permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act despite differing defences, provided the insurer is confined to its statutory grounds. The direct effect is that the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 37,500/- in compensation to the respondent stands affirmed. No new precedent beyond the maintainability of joint appeals is established, and there is no order as to costs.
Judgement
This is an appeal preferred jointly by the owner of the vehicle as also the Insurance Company questioning an award of Rs. 37,500/- made by the Court of Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna. The accident occurred on 21-4-1981 at Vijayawada and the respondent who was injured suffered a fracture on his left ankle. The respondent underwent treatment at Vijayawada and also at Madras but he was, however, left with a permanent disability as he has to limp. On account of the said disability, the respondent who was a photographer by profession, suffered detriment and claimed damages. The respondent has a photo studio called Veeranna Studio at Vijayawada with a branch at Madras. It is stated that the studio is also engaged in producing documentary films for private and Government institutions which are exhibited in the cinema and the T.V. The respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 74,000/- as compensation and the Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 37,500/-. Against the said award the owner of the bus as well as the Insurance Company have preferred this appeal jointly.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri A.V. Parthasarathy for Sri Y.B. Tata Rao contending that a single appeal by the Insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle is not maintainable inasmuch as the defences open to each of these appellants are different. For the abovesaid purpose, reliance is placed upon a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in United India F. and G.I. Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. Gulab Chandra, AIR 1985 All 44. The learned Judges therein held that inasmuch as u/s. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with S.110-D, the grounds of defence available to the Insurance company are different from the grounds available to the owner of the vehicle, the appeal is not maintainable jointly by both of them. The learned Judges have further held that if the decree does not make the owner of the vehicle to pay he cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of S.110-D of the Act. This preliminary objection is resisted by the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.V.R.S. Somayajulu.
3. I am of the view that the preliminary objection is not correct and that this appeal jointly preferred by the Insurance Company as well as by the owner of the vehicle is maintainable. The Insurance Company is only in the position of an indemnifier to the owner of the vehicle. Unless the owner of the vehicle is made liable, the insurer, being an indemnifier, cannot be made liable. I fail to see how the person primarily liable as well as the person who indemnifies him cannot be said to be aggrieved persons at the same time and, if so, why they cannot join together in a single appeal. It may be that the defences open to the indemnifier are statutorily restricted from those available to the person principally liable but that does not mean that there are any conflicting or opposing interests between them. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, provision is made to recover the amount from the Insurance Company up to a particular limit and beyond that, the amount can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. If the injured person is not able to recover any part of the amount from the Insurance Company (for some good reason), he can certainly recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The alternative argument that the owner of the vehicle is not an aggrieved person at all because his liability is taken over by the Insurance Company is not correct. It will be anomalous to say that the person mainly liable is not an aggrieved person merely because the amount is not initially recoverable from him. Even in a case where the quantum of liability of the Insurance Company exceeds the total amount claimed by the injured person the position, in my opinion, is not different. The inter se relationship of indemnifier and indemnified continues and there is no conflicting interest. Further it may also be the duty of the owner of the vehicle to protect the interests of the indemnifier and see that the latter is not unnecessarily mulcted with liability. Merely because the claim in the case is less than the limit applicable to the indemnifier, the owner of the vehicle need not feel absolved of his liability to safeguard the interests of the indemnifier. The mere fact that certain defences open to the owner of the vehicle are not open to the Insurance Company does not make any difference.
4. Suppose in the very case, the parties have preferred independent appeals nothing precludes the Court from taking up the appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle at the outset and (if the Court comes to the conclusion that (say) negligence is not made out or that the quantum is liable to be reduced) give relief in those respects to the owner of the vehicle. The Court can then take up the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and implement the result in the owners appeal while dealing with the other appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. The Court cannot refuse to give this benefit to the Insurance Company in the connected appeal merely because the defences open to the Insurance Company are not the same as those available to the owner of the vehicle inasmuch as when two appeals arise out of the same petition filed by the injured person, there cannot be inconsistent decrees in the same matter. In such circumstances, I do not find anything wrong in both the persons filing the same appeal. This is, however, subject to the condition that in case the appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle is dismissed for default or on merits or for some reason, the Insurance Company cannot fall back upon the grounds mentioned by the owner of the vehicle in his appeal. But, the Insurance Company shall be confined only to the grounds available to it under the Motor Vehicles Act. I, therefore, dissent from the decision in U.I.F. and G.I. Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. Gulab Chandra (AIR 1985 All 44) (supra).
5. Coming to the merits, I am not inclined to interfere with the various items awarded by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of earnings by the date of trial. This was based upon a reduction in the bill paid by the Andhra Paper Mills, Rajahmundry in respect of a documentary film which the respondent was not able to complete according to the schedule, on account of the accident. So far as the future loss of earnings are concerned, though a claim was made for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, the Court awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the basis that the percentage of disability was said to be 10 per cent. The respondent is a person aged about 58 years and the business is run by a partnership in which sons are also partners. The Court below has awarded Rs. 7,000/- towards expenditure for transport and extra nourishment during the period of medical treatment. A sum of Rs. 500-00 was awarded towards clothing, Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000-00 towards loss of amenity or loss on account of the injury. Inasmuch as the respondent had a limp and to use a stick for the purpose of walking, I am of the view that the award is not liable to be reduced further. The respondents counsel stated that a memorandum of cross-objections had been filed into the Court on 14-10-1985, but the same is not found in the papers of the Court and it is possible that the memorandum had been returned and not re-submitted to the Court. Even so, I have considered the points mentioned in the cross-objections and do not think it a fit case for any further increase.
6. In the result, the appeal is held maintainable but is dismissed on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert