HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1400 of 2016
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of the order and decree dated 01.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. According to the petitioners, on 08-10-2010 the deceased being the pillion rider along with one G.Rama Krishna were going on scooter bearing No. AP.25.F.1787 and at about 12.30 p.m. when they reached the limits of Nasrullabad, one lorry bearing No. PB 05 G 4901 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed on the wrong side of the road and dashed their scooter, due to which both of them fell down from the scooter and the lorry ran over them, due to which the deceased and the pillion rider both sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Banswada in 108 Ambulance and thereafter to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where the deceased was declared dead. According to the petitioners, the 2 MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016 deceased was doing agriculture, vegetable and milk business and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- under various heads.
3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. PB 05 G 4901 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?
3. To what relief?
5. In order to prove their case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked.
3
MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016
6. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.6,57,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the scooter and that the Tribunal grossly erred in believing the charge sheet. It is further contended that the compensation granted by the trial court is excessive. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned order in the O.P.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants argued that after appreciating the entire evidence 4 MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016 available on record, the learned Tribunal has granted reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. With regard to the manner of accident, except stating that the rider of the scooter drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company in support of their contention. Further the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. However, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was doing agriculture, vegetable and milk business and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. As there is no income proof filed by the petitioners, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and as the deceased was aged 29 5 MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016 years, by applying multiplier '17', granted an amount of Rs.6,12,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. Further an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.6,57,000/- under all counts, which is just and reasonable in my considered view. Thus, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on this aspect.
12. With regard to the liability, petitioners filed copy of cover note which was marked Ex.A5 to prove that the lorry was insured with the respondent No.2 and there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6
MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016
13. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 05.12.2022 pgp