THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 4144 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
The New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, preferred this appeal challenging the order and decree, dated 17.02.2006, passed in O.P. No. 291 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda.
The claimant, respondent No. 2 herein, filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 11.0.2003. According to the claimant, while he was walking on the extreme left side of the road at Narsaiahgudem Village for attending his agricultural work, the offending auto bearing No. AP 24U 7846, being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, as a result of which he received serious injuries to head, face, foot, hand, leg and left side of back. According to him, he is aged 35 years, used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing agricultural works, but due to the back injury, he was bed ridden for 30 days and unable to attend the works as usual. Hence, he claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.49,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum holding the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2
Now, the only contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the accident had occurred as a result of gross negligence on the part of the claimant and the learned Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the Insurance Company or at least, the Tribunal ought to have fastened certain ratio of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-claimant, contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein. Perused the material available on record.
The learned Tribunal, while answering issue No. 1 whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and if so, whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of auto bearing No. AP-24-U-7846, at para No. 7, duly considering the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.3, copies of FIR and Charge sheet and as no contra evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company to disprove the evidence of P.W.1, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Even during the course of arguments in the appeal, the learned Standing Counsel has not made out any ground 3 with regard to the negligence, if any, on the part of the claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, except making bald allegation that there was also fault/negligence on the part of the claimant. In view of the categorical findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, in this regard, based on evaluation of evidence brought on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal.
The M.A.C.M.A. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 03.01.2022 tsr 4 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI M.A.C.M.A. No. 4144 of 2008 DATE: 03-01-2022