Telangana High Court
Relaiance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Ramavath Kabeer Dass Died And 5 Others on 12 December, 2023
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.731 of 2015
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of the order and decree dated 27.06.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.299 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy.
2. On 28.11.2010, due to the rash and negligent driving of Innova Car bearing No.AP-09-BK-8466 by its driver, it dashed against the scooter of the deceased due to which, the petitioner Ramavath Kabeer Das sustained severe injuries.
3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.16,75,535/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that the decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, 2 JS, J MACMA.No.731 of 2015 weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It is contended that claimant/respondent No.1 herein was negligent in driving the scooter and he himself had caused the accident and therefore the injured ought to have atleast held that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of respondent No.1 herein who was the rider of the scooter, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order in the O.P.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another 1, with regard to contributory negligence and on the judgment of High Court of Calcutta in Sudhir Bhuiya Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another 2 to the effect that the contents of the public document must be proved by its author. These two judgments are not applicable to the case of the appellant as the Tribunal has dealt with the issue of contributory negligence and recorded its findings against the appellant 1 2006 ACJ 855 2 2005 ACJ 509 3 JS, J MACMA.No.731 of 2015 herein. Further, the claimant has filed the medical bills with regard to the treatment undergone by him, which cannot be doubted as the factum of the accident is not denied by the appellant.
7. On a perusal of the material on record, the order and decree of the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Since there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and decree warranting interference by this Court, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI Date:12.12.2023 ksk