Finding no error in the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) whereby it had awarded compensation of Rs.1 lacs to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident, the Andhra Pradesh High Court after thorough examination unequivocally affirmed that the Tribunal's order remained entirely lawful, devoid of any irregularities or illegality, and completely aligned with the legal framework.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao observed that “The Tribunal in its order held that there is no dispute in respect of the fact that during the course of employment the petitioner sustained injuries while driving the offending lorry, which was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-policy, the policy was in force as on the date of accident, the Insurance company collected Rs.100/- towards liability of owner, the driver of the offending lorry was having valid driving license at the time of accident, therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal”.

The brief facts of the case were that an appeal was lodged by the second respondent, an insurance company, against the decision of the Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, issued on 29th December, 2008, in M.V.O.P.No.79 of 2008. In the initial claim petition, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to injuries sustained in a road accident on July 30, 2007.

The petitioner's account stated that while driving a lorry in the jurisdiction of Tangi Police Station on National Highway No. 5, a stray cow suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle. To avoid hitting the cow, the petitioner swerved the lorry to the left, causing it to overturn and resulting in severe injuries. The petitioner held the owner (first respondent) and the insurer (second respondent) of the lorry jointly and severally responsible for the accident and sought compensation accordingly. The respondents contested the petitioner's version and argued that the petitioner was at fault for the accident. While the insurance company contended that they were not liable for compensation due to the driver of the lorry lacking a valid driving license and the lorry not being insured with them.

After evaluating the evidence, the Bench found that the MACT in its factual finding has noted that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry's driver.

The Bench also noted that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver and the Tribunal's finding that the accident was due to the driver's negligence remained unchallenged.

“The Tribunal determined that the petitioner was injured while driving the lorry owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent under Ex.B.1 policy. It confirmed the policy's validity, the driver's valid license, and the liability of both respondents for compensation”, added the Bench.

Since the petitioner substantiated their case with medical evidences and bills, the High Court confirmed the legality of the MACT’s order, maintaining the original compensation decree.

Cause Title: Oriental Insurance [M.A.C.M.A.No. 1368 of 2014]

Click here to read/download Judgment


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice V. Gopala Krishna Rao

Pankaj Bajpai