THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1281 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2007, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by appellant herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding Rs.67,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-owner of the lorry. Perused the material on record.
3. The 1st respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.06.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, he and his friends were travelling in a jeep bearing No.AEO 2323 to attend the marriage of their friend at Laxmipur Village and when they reached the 2 outskirts of Kamalapur, near Madadi Ramachandra Reddy mango garden, a lorry bearing No.MP 44 J 0137, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed the jeep, as a result of which the claimant sustained fracture injury to his right hand, besides other injuries. He was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal where he underwent operation for setting the fractured bones with implants. Police, Kamalapur registered a case in Cr.No.83 of 2005 against the driver of the lorry for the offence punishable under Sections 338 IPC. According to the claimant, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he owns agricultural land earning Rs.60,000/- per annum.
4. The appellant-insurer and respondent No.2-insured filed separate counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled for a total compensation of 3 Rs.67,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal.
6. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether the driver of the lorry was having a valid driving licence as on the date of accident?
7. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, Ex.A-4 crime details form (Form No.54), would disclose that in column No.7B, the driving licence number of the lorry driver i.e., AP101/229/PAC/2005 was mentioned. During trial, on behalf of the insurer, R.W.1 was examined. In cross-examination, when R.W.1 was confronted with the driving licence number of lorry driver, he admitted the same. It is clear from the same that the driver of the offending lorry was having valid driving licence at the time of accident and, accordingly, the insurer and the insured (owner) were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. The insurer has not placed any other evidence on record in support of his contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for the insurer cannot be 4 accepted. The findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and it is also proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident.
8. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 11.10.2022 Lrkm