THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 67 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, questioning the award and decree, dated 29.11.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (for short, the Tribunal).
For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the tribunal.
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, E. Pandari, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.03.2014. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was returning in an auto to his village after completing his work, when the auto reached near Sadashivuni Tank on Sadasivapet, the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 01Y 6969, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed the 2 MGP, J Macma_67_2019 auto in opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Sadashivapet. According to the claimants, the deceased was 52 years, working as Supervisor in Usha Conductors (P) Limited, Kukatpally and drawing salary of Rs.9,750/- per month. Therefore, they laid a claim against the respondents for Rs.15.00 lakhs towards compensation under various heads.
Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1, owner of the lorry, stood ex parte, the respondent No. 2 contested the claim denying the averments of the claim petition, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
After considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.12,03,800/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Hence, the insurnace 3 MGP, J Macma_67_2019 company filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
The only contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, insurance company, is that although the claimants have filed Ex.A.7, salary certificate, to prove that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Usha Conductors pvt. Limited company, the said document does not contain the stamp/seal of the said company which has also been admitted by P.W.3, the alleged accountant of the company, in his cross- examination. In such circumstances, the tribunal ought not to have taken into consideration Ex.A.7, instead, ought to have fixed the income of the deceased based on prevailing minimum wages.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, claimants, has contended that merely because Ex.A.7 does not contain the seal/stamp, it should not be brushed aside for the reason that EX. A.7 was sufficiently proved by the evidence of P.W.3, the Accountant of the 4 MGP, J Macma_67_2019 Company. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
As regards the quantum of compensation, considering Ex.A.7, salary certificate, the evidence of P.W.3, the Junior Accountant of the employer of deceased, age of the deceased as 52 years, the tribunal has granted the total compensation of Rs. 12,03,800/-, including the conventional heads, as against the claim for Rs.15,0,000/-. Now, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company vehemently argues that Ex.A.7 ought not to have been taken into consideration by the tribunal as it does not bear the seal/signature of the employer. But, the fact remains that apart from Ex.A.7, the claimants got examined the Accountant of the employer as P.W.3, who specifically deposed that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Usha Conductors Private Limited, Kukatpally and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.9,750/-. Nothing contra, in this regard, is elicited in his cross-examination. Even the insurance company 5 MGP, J Macma_67_2019 has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the avocation or Ex.A.7, salary certificate. In such circumstances, the tribunal has rightly taken into consideration Ex.A.7, salary certificate, for fixing the compensation. Since no other ground is raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, 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 award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 20.10.2022 Tsr/mnv