THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1528 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 06.02.2012 passed in O.P.No.159 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet (for short, the Tribunal).
For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The claimant, who is the son of Bal Lingu Pochavva (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 16.10.2010 the deceased and others were proceeding to Karimnagar town from their village Chinnakodur in an auto bearing No.AP 23 X 0633 for selling custard apples, when the auto reached in between Thotapally Village and Gagillapur Village on Rajiv Rahadari, one Tavera vehicle bearing No.AP 36 AA 4545 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the auto, due to which, the inmates of the auto sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. On a complaint, the Police, Bejjanki, registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2010 against the driver of the Tavera Vehicle. The claimant is the son of the 2 GSD, J Macma_1528_2012 deceased and the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to her family and due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimant, who is son of the deceased, suffered mental agony and he lost love and affection of his mother. Hence, the claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2, being owner and insurer of the aforesaid Tavera Vehicle, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased.
Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition, manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the claimant is not the dependant of the deceased as the claimant has got his own income. It is also stated that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling and that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tavera bearing No.AP 36 AA 4545?
2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties?
3) Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation, if so, what extent and from whom?3
GSD, J Macma_1528_2012
4) To what relief?
During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Tavera and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
Heard both sides.
A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well considered order by taking into consideration all the aspects, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum. The Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tavera bearing No.AP 36 AA 4545, to which the Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tavera Vehicle and has answered in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. With regard to Issue No.3 as to whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom, in the light of the decided case laws of the Apex Court, under the heads of loss of estate, loss of love and affection and 4 GSD, J Macma_1528_2012 future prospects etc., the claimant is entitled for more compensation. Since this is an appeal filed by the Insurance Companies and in the absence of no cross appeal or cross- objections filed by the claimant, this Court is not inclined to go into the other issues and this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.01.2022 gkv